Misplaced Pages

Objectivism: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:24, 2 December 2005 editZenohockey (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers11,530 edits External links: ARI Watch: "Shows how" >"Argues that"← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:55, 18 October 2024 edit undoPrimeBOT (talk | contribs)Bots2,048,605 editsm External links: Task 24: elink template removal following a TFDTag: AWB 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Philosophical system developed by Ayn Rand}}
{{cleanup-date|October 2005}}
{{Redirect|Objectivist philosophy|objectivity in philosophy|Objectivity (philosophy)|other uses|Objectivism (disambiguation)}}
{{Template:Libertarianism}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=October 2017}}
{{dablink|This article is about ]'s Objectivist philosophy. For articles about the philosophical perspective in general, see instead ].}}
{{Objectivist movement}}
'''Objectivism''' is a ] named and developed by ] writer and philosopher ]. She described it as "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute".<ref name="auto">"About the Author" in {{harvnb|Rand|1992|pp=1170–1171}}</ref>


Rand first expressed Objectivism in her fiction, most notably '']'' (1943) and '']'' (1957), and later in non-fiction essays and books.<ref name="Badhwar 2010">{{harvnb|Badhwar|Long|2020}}</ref> ], a professional philosopher and Rand's designated intellectual heir,<ref>''Contemporary Authors Online'', s.v. "Leonard Peikoff". Accessed March 2, 2008.</ref><ref name="McLemee">{{cite journal |last=McLemee |first=Scott |url=http://linguafranca.mirror.theinfo.org/9909/rand.html |title=The Heirs Of Ayn Rand: Has Objectivism Gone Subjective? |journal=] |date=September 1999 |volume=9 |issue=6 |pages=45–55}}</ref> later gave it a more formal structure. Peikoff characterizes Objectivism as a "closed system" insofar as its "fundamental principles" were set out by Rand and are not subject to change. However, he stated that "new implications, applications and integrations can always be discovered".<ref name="Fact and Value" />
{{Philosophy portal}}
'''Objectivism''' is a philosophical system developed by Russian-born American philosopher and author ]. It encompasses positions in ], ], ], ], and ]. Objectivism holds that there is a mind-independent reality, that individual human beings are in contact with this reality through sensory perception, that they gain knowledge by processing the data of perception using the method of ] or "non-contradictory identification," that the proper ] purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own ], and that the only moral social system is '']'' ].


Objectivism's main tenets are that ] exists independently of ], that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception (see ]), that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of ] formation and ], that the proper ] purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (see ]), that the only ] consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect for ] embodied in '']'' ], and that the role of ] in human life is to transform humans' ] ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally.
Rand also characterizes Objectivism as a philosophy "for living on earth," grounded in reality and aimed at facilitating knowledge of the natural world and harmonious, mutually beneficial interactions between human beings. Rand wrote:
<blockquote>


Academic philosophers have generally paid little attention to or dismissed Rand's philosophy,<ref name="academic">{{harvnb|Sciabarra|2013|p=}}; {{harvnb|Badhwar|Long|2020}}; {{harvnb|Gotthelf|2000|p=}}; {{harvnb|Machan|2000|p=}}; {{harvnb|Heyl|1995|p=223}}; {{harvnb|Burns|2020|p=259}}; {{harvnb|Cocks|2020|p=11}}</ref> although a smaller number of academics do support it.<ref>{{harvnb|Sciabarra|2013|p=}}; Salmieri, Gregory. "An Introduction to the Study of Ayn Rand". In {{harvnb|Gotthelf|Salmieri|2016|p=5}}</ref> Nonetheless, Objectivism has been a persistent influence among ] and ].<ref name="politicalinfluence">{{harvnb|Burns|2009|p=4}}; {{harvnb|Gladstein|2009|pp=107–108, 124}}</ref> The ], which Rand founded, attempts to spread her ideas to the public and in academic settings.<ref>{{harvnb|Sciabarra|1995|pp=1–2}}</ref>
''My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.''&nbsp;{{ref|Rand}}</blockquote>


== Philosophy ==
Objectivism derives its name from its conception of knowledge and values as "]," rather than as "intrinsic" or "]." According to Rand, neither concepts nor values are "intrinsic" to external reality, nor are they merely "subjective" (by which Rand means "arbitrary" or "created by feelings, desires, 'intuitions,' or whims"). Rather, properly formed concepts and values are ''objective,'' meaning that they meet the specific (] and/or biocentric) needs of the individual human person. Valid concepts and values are, as she wrote, "determined by the nature of reality, but to be discovered by man's mind." One cannot change reality to his desires, meaning that reality is not created by man, men must adapt to it.
]
Rand originally expressed her ideas in her novels—most notably, in both ''The Fountainhead'' and ''Atlas Shrugged''. She further elaborated on them in her periodicals '']'', '']'', and '']'', and in non-fiction books such as '']'' and '']''.<ref name="Rubin">{{cite news |first=Harriet |last=Rubin |title=Ayn Rand's Literature of Capitalism |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/business/15atlas.html |newspaper=] |date=September 15, 2007 |access-date=September 18, 2007}}</ref>


The name "Objectivism" derives from the idea that human knowledge and values are ]: they exist and are determined by the nature of reality, to be discovered by one's mind, and are not created by the thoughts one has.<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1967|p=23}}</ref> Rand stated that she chose the name because her preferred term for a philosophy based on the primacy of ]—"]"—had already been taken.<ref>{{harvnb|Peikoff|1991|p=36}}</ref>
"Objectivism" was actually Rand's second choice for the name of her philosophy. Rand said that "existentialism" is the more appropriate term, because her philosophy recognizes both the metaphysical primacy of existence and the ethical goal of maintaining one's own existence. However, ] philosophers such as ] and ] had already co-opted this term for a very different view. Consequently, Rand chose "Objectivism."

Rand characterized Objectivism as "a philosophy for living on earth", based on reality, and intended as a method of defining human nature and the nature of the world in which we live.<ref name="Rubin"/>
{{Blockquote|text=My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.|sign=], '']''<ref name="auto"/>}}


== Objectivist principles ==
=== Metaphysics: objective reality === === Metaphysics: objective reality ===
Rand's philosophy begins with three ]s: existence, consciousness, and ].<ref>{{harvnb|Peikoff|1991|pp=4–11}}</ref> Rand defined an axiom as "a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained in all others whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not. An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it."<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1992|p=1040}}.</ref> As Objectivist philosopher ] argued, Rand's argument for axioms "is not a proof that the axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity are true. It is proof that they are ''axioms'', that they are at the base of knowledge and thus inescapable."<ref>{{harvnb|Peikoff|1991|p=11}}</ref>
''Main article: ]


Rand said that ''existence'' is the perceptually self-evident fact at the base of all other knowledge, i.e., that "existence exists". She further said that to be is to be ''something'', that "existence ''is'' identity". That is, to be is to be "an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes".<ref>{{Cite book|last=Rand|first=Ayn|title=For the New Intellectual: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand|date=1996 |orig-date=1961|publisher=Signet|isbn=0-451-16308-7|location=New York}}</ref> That which has no nature or attributes does not and cannot exist. The axiom of existence is conceptualized as differentiating something from nothing, while the law of identity is conceptualized as differentiating one thing from another, i.e., one's first awareness of the law of non-contradiction, another crucial base for the rest of knowledge. As Rand wrote, "A leaf ... cannot be all red and green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time... ]."<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1992|p=1016}}.</ref> Objectivism rejects belief in anything alleged to transcend existence.<ref>{{harvnb|Peikoff|1991|pp=31–33}}</ref>
The key tenets of the Objectivist ] are captured in three propositions:
* Existence exists.
* Existence is Identity.
* Consciousness is Identification.
The axiom of Existence affirms that reality (the universe, that which is) exists, and that it exists independently of human consciousness. The ] states that anything that exists is determinate, that is, has a fixed, finite nature (''i.e.,'' "]"). The Axiom of Consciousness affirms that one is conscious and that the function of consciousness is the identification of reality.


Rand argued that consciousness is "the faculty of perceiving that which exists". As she put it, "to be conscious is to be conscious of ''something''", that is consciousness itself cannot be distinguished or conceptualized except in relation to an independent reality.<ref>{{harvnb|Peikoff|1991|p=5}}</ref> "It cannot be aware only of itself—there is no 'itself' until it is aware of something."<ref name="Gotthelf">{{harvnb|Gotthelf|2000}}</ref> Thus, Objectivism posits that the mind does not create reality, but rather, it is a means of discovering reality.<ref name="ITOE">{{harvnb|Rand|1990}}</ref> Expressed differently, existence has "primacy" over consciousness, which must conform to it. Any other type of argument Rand termed "the primacy of consciousness", including any variant of metaphysical subjectivism or theism.<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1982|pp=24–28}}</ref>
In addition to these three basic axioms, Objectivist philosophy affirms the Law of Causality as a corollary of the Law of Identity. The Law of Causality states that things act in accordance with their natures. These propositions are all held in Objectivism to be ]atic. According to Objectivism, the proof of a proposition's being axiomatic is that it is both (a) ] and (b) cannot coherently be denied, because any argument against the proposition would have to suppose its truth.


Objectivist philosophy derives its explanations of action and ] from the axiom of identity, referring to causation as "the law of identity applied to action".<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1992|p=1037}}</ref> According to Rand, it is entities that act, and every action is the action of an entity. The way entities act is caused by the specific nature (or "identity") of those entities; if they were different, they would act differently. As with the other axioms, an implicit understanding of causation is derived from one's primary observations of causal connections among entities even before it is verbally identified and serves as the basis of further knowledge.<ref>{{harvnb|Peikoff|1991|p=14}}</ref>
Some contemporary physicists dispute the Objectivist Law of Causality because it appears to allow certainty of prediction, whereas the ] establishes that nothing can be predicted with certainty, at the quantum-mechanical level (which controls atomic and nuclear physics, and chemistry.) Furthermore, according to ], many classical (non quantum-mechanical) systems are unpredictable beyond a short time. These reservations would seem to apply as well to the ], because things do not have fixed natures. For example, in ]s, one kind of neutrino changes into another, and the other can change into a third kind or back to the first. In fact, the neutrinos are produced in "flavor states" but propagate in "energy states." Objectivists dispute this intepretation of Rand, arguing that something not being knowable does not imply it is not objective.


=== Epistemology: reason === === Epistemology: reason ===
According to Rand, attaining knowledge beyond what is given by perception requires both ] (or the exercise of ]) and performing a specific method of validation by observation, concept-formation, and the application of ] and ]. For example, a belief in dragons, however sincere, does not mean that reality includes dragons. A process of proof identifying the basis in reality of a claimed item of knowledge is necessary to establish its truth.<ref>{{harvnb|Peikoff|1991|pp=116–121}}</ref>


Objectivist ] begins with the principle that "consciousness is identification". This is understood to be a direct consequence of the metaphysical principle that "existence is identity".<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1961|p=124}}</ref> Rand defined "reason" as "the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses".<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1964|p=22}}</ref> Rand wrote "The fundamental concept of method, the one on which all the others depend, is ]. The distinguishing characteristic of logic (the art of non-contradictory identification) indicates the nature of the actions (actions of consciousness required to achieve a correct identification) and their goal (knowledge)—while omitting the length, complexity or specific steps of the process of logical inference, as well as the nature of the particular cognitive problem involved in any given instance of using logic."<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1990|p=36}}</ref>
''Main article: ]''


According to Rand, ] possesses a specific and finite identity, just like everything else that exists; therefore, it must operate by a specific method of validation. An item of knowledge cannot be "disqualified" by being arrived at by a specific process in a particular form. Thus, for Rand, the fact that consciousness must itself possess identity implies the rejection of both universal skepticism based on the "limits" of consciousness, as well as any claim to revelation, emotion or faith-based belief.
Objectivism's ], like the other branches of Objectivism, was present in some form ever since the publication of '']''. However, it was more fully developed in Rand's 1967 work '']''. Rand considered her epistemology central to her philosophy, once remarking, "I am not ''primarily'' an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not ''primarily'' an advocate of egoism, but of ]. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows."
According to the Objectivist epistemology, through sensory perception and a process of reasoning, a human being can achieve awareness of his environment. Objectivism rejects ]. As a corollary, it also maintains that anything that is not learned by objective, rational means is not true knowledge, rejecting ] as a means of attaining knowledge. Similarly, though Rand recognized the importance of emotion in human life, she maintained that emotions were evaluational feedback on reality, not a separate means of awareness of reality.


Objectivist epistemology maintains that all knowledge is ultimately based on perception. "Percepts, not sensations, are the given, the self-evident."<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1990|p=5}}</ref> Rand considered the validity of the senses to be axiomatic and said that purported arguments to the contrary all commit the fallacy of the "stolen concept"<ref>{{cite journal |last=Branden |first=Nathaniel |author-link=Nathaniel Branden |date=January 1963 |title=The Stolen Concept |journal=The Objectivist Newsletter |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=2, 4}}</ref> by presupposing the validity of concepts that, in turn, presuppose the validity of the senses.<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1990|p=3}}</ref> She said that perception, being determined physiologically, is incapable of error. For example, ]s are errors in the conceptual identification of what is seen, not errors of sight itself.<ref name="Kelley 1986">{{harvnb|Kelley|1986}}</ref> The validity of sense perception, therefore, is not susceptible to proof (because it is presupposed by all proof as proof is only a matter of adducing sensory evidence) nor should its validity be denied (since the conceptual tools one would have to use to do this are derived from sensory data). Perceptual error, therefore, is not possible. Rand consequently rejected ], as she said that the skeptics' claim to knowledge "distorted" by the form or the means of perception is impossible.<ref name="Kelley 1986"/>
Rand's views on the traditional technical problems of epistemology are difficult to spell out in detail, because she did not devote as much space to them as to problems of ethics and politics, and her formulations are typically more brief and cryptic. (The main sources for her epistemological views are Galt's Speech, ITOE, and the essays in ''Philosophy: Who Needs It''). Other philosophers have much work to do in fully unpacking her views. But this much is clear: She defined knowledge as "conceptual awareness of reality held by an individual human mind," not as "justified true belief" or "reliably generated true belief" (two popular views). Thus, she held that there is a sharp separation between human and animal knowledge. She was neither a classical rationalist (like ] or the ]) nor a classical rationalist (like ], ], or ]). She disagreed with the empiricists mainly in that she (a) held that sensations are integrated automatically into perceptions, which should not be disassembled when doing epistemology, and (b) denied the analytic-synthetic distinction and the related view that there are "truths in virtue of meaning," especially the view that "necessary truths" and mathematical truths are best understood as truths in virtue of meaning. But she was not a rationalist: she denied the existence of a priori knowledge.


The Objectivist theory of perception distinguishes between the ''form'' and ''object.'' The form in which an organism perceives is determined by the physiology of its sensory systems. Whatever form the organism perceives it in, what it perceives—the object of perception—is reality.<ref>{{harvnb|Kelley|1986}}; {{harvnb|Peikoff|1991|pp=44–48}}</ref> Rand consequently rejected the ] dichotomy between "things as we perceive them" and "things as they are in themselves". Rand wrote:
On the issue of justification, Rand was neither a strict foundationalist after the manner of ] nor a strict coherentist after the manner of ]. She was a foundationalist insofar as she believed that sensory evidence is not in further need of justification. But beyond that, justification proceeds by coherence. (She disagrees with Quine, then, because he denies that there are axioms like the Law of Identity).


{{Blockquote|The attack on man's consciousness and particularly on his conceptual faculty has rested on the unchallenged premise that any knowledge acquired by a ''process'' of consciousness is necessarily subjective and cannot correspond to the facts of reality, since it is ''processed'' knowledge … all knowledge ''is'' processed knowledge—whether on the sensory, perceptual or conceptual level. An "unprocessed" knowledge would be a knowledge acquired without means of cognition.<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1990|p=81}}</ref>}}
She was not a naive realist about perception like ], nor was she a representationalist (i.e., an indirect realist who believes in a "veil of ideas") like ] or ]. She held that perception is representational, but also pre-conceptual and non-propositional. Consequently, the data of perception cannot be reported in English, because the English language imports conceptual categories that go beyond what is directly given in perception. She does not believe in the possibility of perceptual error or illusion, only the misunderstanding or improper conceptualization of perceptual data. Rand's major work in epistemology dealt with concepts and the proper process of concept-formation. For Rand, concepts have a purpose: to accurately classify real existents according to their similarities and differences. Since we can create concepts that do not serve this purpose, the formation of concepts is subject to error. Therefore, there are "invalid concepts." Rand also proposed novel views about the nature and purpose of definitions. See ].


]'' explains her theory of concept formation.]]
=== Ethics: rational self-interest ===
The aspect of epistemology given the most elaboration by Rand is the theory of concept-formation, which she presented in '']''. She argued that concepts are formed by a process of measurement omission. Peikoff described this as follows:
''Main article: ]
{{Blockquote|To form a concept, one mentally ''isolates'' a group of concretes (of distinct perceptual units), on the basis of observed similarities which distinguish them from all other known concretes (similarity is 'the relationship between two or more existents which possess the same characteristic(s), but in different measure or degree'); then, by a process of omitting the particular measurements of these concretes, one ''integrates'' them into a single new mental unit: the concept, which subsumes all concretes of this kind (a potentially unlimited number). The integration is completed and retained by the selection of a perceptual symbol (a word) to designate it.
"A concept is a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristic(s), with their particular measurements omitted."<ref>Peikoff, Leonard. "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy". In {{harvnb|Rand|1990|pp=97–98}}. The quotes within this passage are of Rand's material elsewhere in the same book.</ref>}}


According to Rand, "the term 'measurements omitted' does not mean, in this context, that measurements are regarded as non-existent; it means that ''measurements exist, but are not specified''. That measurements ''must'' exist is an essential part of the process. The principle is: the relevant measurements must exist in ''some'' quantity, but may exist in ''any'' quantity."<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1990|p=12}}; for more on Rand's theory of concepts see also Kelley, David "A Theory of Abstraction" and "The Psychology of Abstraction", ''Cognition and Brain Theory'' vol. vii, no. 3 and 4 (Summer/Fall 1984), and ], "Quine and Aristotelian Essentialism", ''The New Scholasticism'' 58 (Summer, 1984)</ref>
If one had to reduce to a sound bite Ayn Rand's ideas on how humans ought to live, one would perhaps choose one statement that she wrote:
<blockquote>
"To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: ], ], ]."
</blockquote>
The ethics of Objectivism is based on the theory that each person is responsible for achieving his or her own self-interest. There is a difference, however, between rational self-interest and what she calls "selfishness without a self" - a state of range-of-the-moment selfishness to promote a self that has no esteem. Thieves, according to her, are not motivated by a desire to live (as the man of production is), but by the desire to live on a sub-human level. Instead of using "that which promotes the concept of human life" as their standard of values, they promote "that which ] value" as the standard of value; thus leaving a blank check on what is and isn't moral. The "I value" in that sentence can be replaced with "we value", "he values", or "He values" and still be a blank-check ethics-killer, according to Rand. She is not asking you to believe that either rational selfishness and hedonistic selfishness-without-a-self should be considered good and evil at the same time (as "double-think" may ask) but that the former should be considered good and the latter evil and that there is a "fundamental" difference between them.


Rand argued that concepts are organized hierarchically. Concepts such as 'dog,' which bring together "concretes" available in perception, can be differentiated (into the concepts of 'dachshund,' 'poodle,' etc.) or integrated (along with 'cat,' etc., into the concept of 'animal'). Abstract concepts such as 'animal' can be further integrated, via "abstraction from abstractions", into such concepts as 'living thing.' Concepts are formed in the context of knowledge available. A young child differentiates dogs from cats and chickens but need not explicitly differentiate them from deep-sea tube worms, or from other types of animals not yet known to him, to form a concept 'dog'.<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1990|pp=15–28}}</ref>
=== Politics: individual rights and capitalism ===


Because of its characterization of concepts as "open-ended" classifications that go well beyond the characteristics included in their past or current definitions, Objectivist epistemology rejects the ] as a ]<ref>Peikoff, Leonard. "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy". In {{harvnb|Rand|1990|p=94}}</ref> and denies the possibility of '']'' knowledge.<ref>Peikoff, Leonard. "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy". In {{harvnb|Rand|1990|pp=116–118}}</ref>
The transition from the Objectivist ethics to the Objectivist theory of politics relies on the concept of '']''. A "right", according to Objectivism, is a moral principle that both defines and sanctions a human being's freedom of action in a social or societal context. Objectivism holds that only individuals have rights; there is, in the Objectivist view, no such thing as a "collective right" that does not reduce without remainder to a set of ]. Furthermore, Objectivism is very specific about the set of "individual rights" that it recognizes; as such, the Objectivist list of individual rights differs significantly from the ones adopted by most governments, for example.


Rand rejected "feeling" as sources of knowledge. Rand acknowledged the importance of emotion for human beings, but she maintained that emotions are a consequence of the conscious or subconscious ideas that a person already accepts, not a means of achieving awareness of reality. "Emotions are not tools of cognition."<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1961|p=64}}</ref> Rand also rejected all forms of ] or mysticism, terms that she used synonymously. She defined faith as "the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or ''against'' the evidence of one's senses and reason... Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as 'instinct,' 'intuition,' 'revelation,' or any form of 'just knowing.{{'"}}<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1982|pp=62–63}}</ref> Reliance on revelation is like reliance on a ]; it bypasses the need to show how it connects its results to reality. Faith, for Rand, is not a "short-cut" to knowledge, but a "short-circuit" destroying it.<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1961|p=223}}; {{harvnb|Peikoff|1991|pp=182–185}}</ref>
Although Objectivism does not use the term "natural rights", the rights it recognizes are based directly on the nature of human beings as described in its epistemology and ethics. Since human beings must make choices in order to survive as human beings, the basic requirement of a human life is the freedom to make, and act on, one's own independent rational judgment, according to one's self-interest.


Objectivism acknowledges the facts that human beings have limited knowledge, are vulnerable to error, and do not instantly understand all of the implications of their knowledge.<ref>Lecture by Leonard Peikoff, cited in {{harvnb|Sciabarra|1995}}.</ref> According to Peikoff, one can be certain of a proposition if all of the available evidence verifies it, i.e., it can be logically integrated with the rest of one's knowledge; one is then certain within the context of the evidence.<ref>{{harvnb|Peikoff|1991|pp=171–181}}</ref>
Thus, Objectivism contends, the fundamental right of human beings is the ''right to life''. By this phrase Objectivism means the right to act in furtherance of one's own life &mdash; ''not'' the right to have one's life protected, or to have one's survival guaranteed, by the involuntary effort of other human beings. Indeed, on the Objectivist account, one of the corollaries of the right to life is the ''right to property'' which, according to Objectivism, always represents the product of one's own effort; on this view, one person's right to life ''cannot'' entail the right to dispose of another's private property, under any circumstances. Under Objectivism, one has the right to transfer one's own property to whomever one wants for whatever reason, but such a transfer is only ethical if it is made under the terms of a trade freely consented to by both parties, in the absence of any form of ], each with the expectation that the trade will benefit them. It can be considered axiomatic within Objectivism that human beings have the right to manipulate nature in any way they see fit, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. From this, the ] arises.


Rand rejected the traditional ]/] dichotomy, arguing that it embodies a false alternative: conceptually based knowledge independent of perception (rationalism) versus perceptually based knowledge independent of concepts (empiricism). Rand argued that neither is possible because the senses provide the material of knowledge while conceptual processing is also needed to establish knowable propositions.
On the Objectivist account, the rights of other human beings are not of ''direct'' moral import to the agent who respects them; they acquire their moral purchase through an intermediate step. An Objectivist respects the rights of other human beings out of the recognition of the ''value to himself or herself'' of living in a world in which the freedom of action of other rational (or potentially rational) human beings is respected.


==== Criticism on epistemology ====
According to Objectivism, then, one's respect for the rights of others is founded on the value, to oneself, of other persons as actual or potential trading partners (whether it be trading in a material or emotional sense). Here is where Objectivism's claim about conflicts of interest attains its full significance: on the Objectivist view, it is precisely ''because'' there are no (irresoluble) such conflicts that it is possible for human beings to prosper in a rights-respecting society.
The philosopher ], who was influenced by Rand and shared her moral and political opinions, disagreed with her concerning issues of epistemology.<ref>{{harvnb|Branden|1987|p=323}}</ref> Some philosophers, such as ], have argued that the Objectivist epistemology is incomplete.<ref name="tiborneedwork">For example, {{harvnb|Machan|2000|pp=134–151}}</ref>


Psychology professor ] writes that the relationship between Objectivist epistemology and cognitive science remains unclear because Rand made claims about human cognition and its development which belong to psychology, yet Rand also argued that philosophy is logically prior to psychology and in no way dependent on it.<ref name="itoephilpsych">{{harvnb|Rand|1990|p=289}}</ref><ref name="cogrev">{{cite journal |last=Campbell |first=R. L. |date=Fall 1999 |title=Ayn Rand and the Cognitive Revolution in Psychology |journal=Journal of Ayn Rand Studies |volume=1 |issue=1 |pages=107–134 |url=http://campber.people.clemson.edu/randcogrev.html}}</ref>
Objectivist political theory therefore defends ] as the ideal form of human society. Objectivism reserves the name "capitalism" for full ] capitalism &mdash; ''i.e.,'' a society in which individual rights are consistently respected and in which ''all'' property is (therefore) privately owned. Any system short of this is regarded by Objectivists as a "mixed economy" consisting of certain aspects of capitalism and its opposite (usually called ] or ]),{{ref|Rand}} with pure socialism and/or tyranny at the opposite extreme.


The philosophers ] and {{ill|Roderick Long|ar|رودريك تي لونغ|arz|رودريك تى لونج|es|Roderick Long|ru|Лонг, Родерик Трейси|zh|罗德里克·T·朗}} have argued that Objectivist epistemology conflates the perceptual process by which judgments are formed with the way in which they are to be justified, thereby leaving it unclear how sensory data can validate judgments structured propositionally.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Dipert |first=Randall R. |author-link=Randall Dipert |date=Spring 1987 |title=Review Essay: David Kelley's ''Evidence of the Senses: A Realist Theory of Perception'' |journal=Reason Papers |issue=12 |pages=57–70 |url=http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/12/rp_12_7.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Reason and Value: Rand versus Aristotle |last=Long |first=Roderick T. |location=Poughkeepsie, NY |publisher=The Objectivist Center |year=2000 |isbn=978-1-57724-045-7 |oclc=49875339 |series=Objectivist Studies Monographs}}</ref>
Far from regarding capitalism as a dog-eat-dog pattern of social organization, Objectivism regards it as a beneficent system in which the innovations of the most creative benefit everyone else in the society at no loss to anyone. Indeed, Objectivism values creative achievement itself and regards capitalism as the only kind of society in which it can flourish.


=== {{anchor|Ethics: rational self-interest}} Ethics: self-interest ===
A society is, by Objectivist standards, moral to the extent that individuals are free to pursue their goals. This freedom requires that human relationships of all forms be voluntary (which, in the Objectivist view, means that they must not involve the use of physical force), mutual consent being the defining characteristic of a free society. Thus the proper role of institutions of governance (whether minarchist government proper or its equivalent institutions in an anarchist society) is limited to using force in retaliation against those who initiate its use &mdash; i.e., against criminals and foreign aggressors. Economically, people are free to produce and exchange as they see fit, with as complete a separation of state and economics as of ].
<!-- This Anchor tag serves to provide a permanent target for incoming section links. Please do not move it out of the section heading, even though it disrupts edit summary generation (you can manually fix the edit summary before saving your changes). Please do not modify it, even if you modify the section title. It is always best to anchor an old section header that has been changed so that links to it won't be broken. See ] for details. This text: ]. -->
Objectivism includes an extensive treatment of ethical concerns. Rand wrote on morality in her works '']'' (1936), '']'' (1957) and '']'' (1964). Rand defines morality as "a code of values to guide man's choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life".<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1964|p=13}}.</ref> Rand maintained that the first question is not what should the code of values be, the first question is "Does man need values at all—and why?" According to Rand, "it is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible", and "the fact that a living entity ''is'', determines what it ''ought'' to do".<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1964|p=18}}; for more on Rand's metaethics see {{harvnb|Binswanger|1990|pp=58–66}}, {{harvnb|Smith|2000}} and {{harvnb|Gotthelf|Lennox|2010}}</ref> Rand writes: "there is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death".


Rand argued that the primary emphasis of man's ] is the choice: 'to think or not to think'. "Thinking is not an automatic function. In any hour and issue of his life, man is free to think or to evade that effort. Thinking requires a state of full, focused awareness. The act of focusing one's consciousness is volitional. Man can focus his mind to a full, active, purposefully directed awareness of reality—or he can unfocus it and let himself drift in a semiconscious daze, merely reacting to any chance stimulus of the immediate moment, at the mercy of his undirected sensory-perceptual mechanism and of any random, associational connections it might happen to make."<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1964|p=22}}; for more on Rand's theory of volition, see {{harvnb|Binswanger|1991}}; {{harvnb|Branden|1969}}; and {{harvnb|Peikoff|1991|pp=55–72}}.</ref> According to Rand, therefore, possessing free will, human beings must ''choose'' their values: one does not ''automatically'' have one's own life as his ultimate value. Whether in fact a person's actions promote and fulfill his own life or not is a question of fact, as it is with all other organisms, but whether a person will act to promote his well-being is up to him, not hard-wired into his physiology. "Man has the power to act as his own destroyer—and that is the way he has acted through most of his history."<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1992|p=1013}}</ref>
====Influence on libertarianism====
]


In ''Atlas Shrugged'', Rand wrote "Man's mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive he must act and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch—or build a cyclotron—without a knowledge of his aim and the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think."<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1992|p=1012}}</ref> In her novels, ''The Fountainhead'' and ''Atlas Shrugged'', she also emphasizes the importance of productive work, romantic love and art to human happiness, and dramatizes the ethical character of their pursuit. The primary virtue in Objectivist ethics is ], as Rand meant it "the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action".<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1964|p=25}}; {{harvnb|Smith|2006|p=7}}</ref>
''Main article: ]''


The purpose of a moral code, Rand said, is to provide the principles by reference to which man can achieve the values his survival requires.<ref>{{harvnb|Peikoff|1989a}}</ref> Rand summarizes:
] and Objectivism have a complex relationship. Though they share many of the same political goals, Objectivists see some libertarians as plagiarists of their ideas "with the teeth pulled out of them," whereas some libertarians see Objectivists as dogmatic, unrealistic, and uncompromising. According to ] editor ] in the magazine's ] ] issue focusing on Objectivism's influence, ] is "one of the most important figures in the libertarian movement... A century after her birth and more than a decade after her death, Rand remains one of the best-selling and most widely influential figures in American thought and culture" in general and in libertarianism in particular. Still, he confesses that he is embarrassed by his magazine's association with her ideas. In the same issue, ] says that "Libertarianism, the movement most closely connected to Rand&#8217;s ideas, is less an offspring than a rebel stepchild."
{{Blockquote|If chooses to live, a rational ethics will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choice. If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course. Reality confronts a man with a great many "must's", but all of them are conditional: the formula of realistic necessity is: "you must, if&nbsp;–" and the if stands for man's choice: "if you want to achieve a certain goal".<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1982|pp=118–119}}</ref>}}


Rand's explanation of values presents the proposition that an individual's primary moral obligation is to achieve his own well-being—it is for his life and his self-interest that an individual ought to obey a moral code.<ref>{{harvnb|Smith|2006|pp=23–24}}</ref> ] is a corollary of setting man's life as the moral standard.<ref>{{harvnb|Peikoff|1991|p=230}}</ref> Rand believed that rational egoism is the ] of humans following evidence to its logical conclusion. The only alternative would be that they live without orientation to reality.
Though they reject what they see as Randian dogmas, libertarians like Young still concede that "Rand was the most successful and widely read popularizer of the ideas of individual liberty and the free market of her day. In the 21st century... Rand&#8217;s message of reason and liberty... could be a rallying point" for a less dogmatic political movement with similar goals like libertarianism.


A corollary to Rand's endorsement of self-interest is her rejection of the ]—which she defined in the sense of ]'s altruism (he popularized the term<ref>{{cite web |title=altruism (n .) |url=http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=altruism |work=Online Etymology Dictionary |publisher=Douglas Harper |access-date=27 May 2021}}</ref>), as a moral obligation to live for the sake of others. Rand also rejected subjectivism. A "whim-worshiper" or "hedonist", according to Rand, is not motivated by a desire to live his own human life, but by a wish to live on a sub-human level. Instead of using "that which promotes my (human) life" as his standard of value, he mistakes "that which I (mindlessly happen to) value" for a standard of value, in contradiction of the fact that, existentially, he is a human and therefore rational organism. The "I value" in whim-worship or hedonism can be replaced with "we value", "he values", "they value", or "God values", and still, it would remain dissociated from reality. Rand repudiated the equation of rational selfishness with hedonistic or whim-worshiping "selfishness-without-a-self". She said that the former is good, and the latter bad, and that there is a fundamental difference between them.<ref name="vos">{{harvnb|Rand|1964|p=18}}</ref>
=== Esthetics: Romanticism ===


For Rand, all of the principal ]s are applications of the role of reason as man's basic tool of survival: rationality, honesty, justice, independence, integrity, productiveness, and pride—each of which she explains in some detail in "The Objectivist Ethics".<ref>See also {{harvnb|Smith|2006}}</ref> The essence of Objectivist ethics is summarized by the oath her ''Atlas Shrugged'' character John Galt adhered to: "I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1992|p=731}}</ref>
The Objectivist theory of ] flows fairly directly from its epistemology, by way of "psycho-epistemology" (Objectivism's term for the study of human cognition as it involves interactions between the conscious and the subconscious mind). Art, according to Objectivism, serves a human cognitive need: it allows human beings to grasp concepts as though they were percepts.


==== Criticism on ethics ====
Objectivism defines "art" as a "selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments" &mdash; that is, according to what the artist believes to be ultimately true and important about the nature of reality and humanity. In this respect Objectivism regards art as a way of presenting metaphysics concretely, in perceptual form.
Some philosophers have criticized Objectivist ethics. The philosopher ] argues that Rand's foundational argument in ethics is unsound because it does not explain why someone could not rationally prefer dying and having no values, in order to further some particular value. He argues that her attempt to defend the morality of selfishness is, therefore, an instance of ]. Nozick also argues that Rand's solution to ]'s famous ] is unsatisfactory. In response, the philosophers ] and ] have argued that Nozick misstated Rand's case.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Ayn Rand and the Is-Ought Problem |last=O'Neil |first=Patrick M. |journal=Journal of Libertarian Studies |date=Spring 1983 |volume=7 |issue=1 |pages=81–99 |url=https://www.mises.org/sites/default/files/7_1_4_0.pdf }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |title=Nozick On the Randian Argument |last1=Den Uyl |first1=Douglas |author-link1=Douglas Den Uyl |last2=Rasmussen |first2=Douglas |author-link2=Douglas B. Rasmussen |journal=The Personalist |date=April 1978 |volume=59 |pages=184–205}} Reprinted along with Nozick's article in ''Reading Nozick'', J. Paul, ed., 1981, ].</ref>


Charles King criticized Rand's example of an indestructible robot to demonstrate the value of life as incorrect and confusing.<ref>King, J. Charles. "Life and the Theory of Value: The Randian Argument Reconsidered" in {{harvnb|Den Uyl|Rasmussen|1984}}.</ref> In response, Paul St. F. Blair defended Rand's ethical conclusions, while maintaining that his arguments might not have been approved by Rand.<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/10/rp_10_7.pdf |title=The Randian Argument Reconsidered: A Reply to Charles King |first=Paul |last=St. F. Blair |journal=Reason Papers |date=Spring 1985 |issue=10 |access-date=September 14, 2011}}</ref>
The human need for art, on this view, stems from the need for cognitive economy. A concept is already a sort of mental shorthand standing for a large number of concretes, allowing a human being to think indirectly or implicitly of many more such concretes than can be held explicitly in mind. But a human being cannot hold indefinitely many ''concepts'' explicitly in mind either &mdash; and yet, on the Objectivist view, needs a comprehensive conceptual framework in order to provide guidance in life.


=== Politics: individual rights and capitalism ===
Art offers a way out of this dilemma by providing a ''perceptual'', easily grasped means of communicating and thinking about a wide range of abstractions. Its function is thus similar to that of language, which uses concrete ''words'' to represent concepts.
Rand's defense of individual liberty integrates elements from her entire philosophy.<ref>{{harvnb|Peikoff|1991|p=354}}; {{harvnb|Sciabarra|1995|p=274}}</ref> Since reason is the means of human knowledge, it is therefore each person's most fundamental means of survival and is necessary to the achievement of values.<ref>{{harvnb|Bernstein|2009|pp=25–31}}</ref> The use or threat of ] neutralizes the practical effect of an individual's reason, whether the force originates from the state or from a criminal. According to Rand, "man's mind will not function at the point of a gun".<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1967|p=141}}</ref> Therefore, the only type of organized human behavior consistent with the operation of reason is that of voluntary cooperation. Persuasion is the method of reason. By its nature, the overtly irrational cannot rely on the use of persuasion and must ultimately resort to force to prevail.<ref>{{harvnb|Peikoff|1991|pp=310–313}}</ref> Thus, Rand argued that reason and freedom are correlates, just as she argued that mysticism and force are corollaries.<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1982|p=66}}</ref> Based on this understanding of the role of reason, Objectivists claim that the initiation of physical force against the will of another is immoral,<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1964|p=36}}; {{harvnb|Peikoff|1991|p=310}}; {{harvnb|Smith|1997|pp=143–147}}</ref> as are indirect initiations of force through threats,<ref>{{harvnb|Smith|1997|pp=150–155}}</ref> fraud,<ref>{{harvnb|Peikoff|1991|pp=319}}</ref> or breach of contract.<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1964|pp=129–130}}</ref> The use of defensive or retaliatory force, on the other hand, is appropriate.<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1964|p=126}}; {{harvnb|Peikoff|1991|p=320}}</ref>


Objectivism claims that because the opportunity to use reason without the initiation of force is necessary to achieve moral values, each individual has an inalienable moral ] to act as his own judgment directs and to keep the product of his effort. Peikoff, explaining the basis of rights, stated, "In content, as the founding fathers recognized, there is one fundamental right, which has several major derivatives. The fundamental right is the right to life. Its major derivatives are the right to liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness."<ref>{{harvnb|Peikoff|1991|pp=351–352}}. The Objectivist understanding of rights is explored at length in {{harvnb|Smith|1997}}.</ref> "A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context."<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1964|p=110}}</ref> These rights are specifically understood to be rights to action, not to specific results or objects, and the obligations created by rights are negative in nature: each individual must refrain from violating the rights of others.<ref>{{harvnb|Peikoff|1991|p=355}}</ref> Objectivists reject alternative notions of rights, such as ],<ref>{{harvnb|Smith|1997|pp=165–182}}; {{harvnb|Touchstone|2006|p=108}}</ref> ], or ].<ref>{{harvnb|Peikoff|1991|pp=356–358}}; {{harvnb|Rand|1964|pp=120}}</ref> Objectivism claims that the only social system which fully recognizes individual rights is capitalism,<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1967|p=19}}</ref> specifically what Rand described as "full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism".<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1964|p=37}}</ref> Objectivism regards capitalism as the social system which is most beneficial to the poor, but does not consider this its primary justification.<ref>{{harvnb|Peikoff|1991|pp=392–395}}; {{harvnb|Sciabarra|1995|p=284}}</ref> Rather, it is the only moral social system. Objectivism maintains that only societies seeking to establish freedom (or free nations) have a right to ].<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1964|p=103}}</ref>
Objectivism regards art as the only really effective way to communicate a moral or ethical ideal. Objectivism does not, however, regard art as propagandistic: even though art involves moral values and ideals, its purpose is not to educate, only to show or project.


Objectivism describes government as "the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws"; thus, government is both legitimate and critically important<ref>{{harvnb|Peikoff|1991|p=364}}</ref> in order to protect individual rights.<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1964|pp=125–128}}</ref> Rand opposed ] because she considered that putting police and courts on the market is an inherent miscarriage of ].<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1964|p=112}}</ref> Objectivism claims that the proper functions of a government are "''the police'', to protect men from criminals—'']'', to protect men from foreign invaders—'']'', to settle disputes among men according to objective laws", the ], and ].<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1964|p=131}}</ref> Furthermore, in protecting individual rights, the government is acting as an agent of its citizens and "has no rights except the rights ''delegated'' to it by the citizens"<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1964|p=129}}</ref> and it must act in an impartial manner according to specific, objectively defined laws.<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1964|p=128}}; {{harvnb|Peikoff|1991|pp=364–365}}</ref>
Moreover, art need not be, and often is not, the outcome of a full-blown, explicit philosophy. Usually it stems from an artist's ''sense of life'' (which is preconceptual and largely emotional), and its appeal is similar to the viewer's or listener's sense of life.


Rand argued that limited ] monopolies being granted to certain inventors and artists on a first-to-file basis are moral because she considered all property as fundamentally intellectual. Furthermore, the value of a commercial product derives in part from the necessary work of its inventors. However, Rand considered limits on patents and copyrights as important and said that if they were granted in perpetuity, it would necessarily result in ''de facto'' collectivism.
Generally Objectivism favors an esthetic of ], which on its Objectivist definition is a category of art treating the existence of human volition as true and important. In this sense, for Objectivism, Romanticism is the school of art that takes values seriously, regards human reason as efficacious, and projects human ideals as achievable. Objectivism contrasts such Romanticism with ], which it regards as a category of art that denies or downplays the role of human volition in the achievement of values.


Rand opposed ] and any legal application of racism. She considered ] to be an example of legal racism.<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1964|pp=173–84}}; ''cf''. {{cite book |title=The Other Side of Racism |last=Wortham |first=Anne |location=Columbus |publisher=] |year=1981 |isbn=978-0-8142-0318-7}}</ref> Rand advocated the right to legal ].<ref>{{cite book |last=Rand |first=Ayn |chapter=Of Living Death |editor=Leonard Peikoff |title=The Voice of Reason |location=New York |publisher=New American Library |year=1989 |isbn=978-0-453-00634-7|title-link=The Voice of Reason (book) }}</ref> Rand believed ] is morally justified as retribution against a murderer, but dangerous due to the risk of mistakenly executing innocent people and facilitating state murder. She therefore said she opposed capital punishment "on epistemological, not moral, grounds".<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|2005|pp=45–46}}</ref> She opposed involuntary ].<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1967|pp=226–28}}</ref> She opposed any form of ], including legal restrictions on ], ] or ], famously quipping; "In the transition to statism, every infringement of human rights has begun with a given right's least attractive practitioners".<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1982|pp=173–84}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/free_speech.html|title=Free Speech|website=Ayn Rand Lexicon}}</ref>
== Response to Objectivist philosophy ==


Objectivists have also opposed a number of government activities commonly endorsed by both liberals and conservatives, including ] laws,<ref>Greenspan, Alan. "Antitrust" in {{harvnb|Rand|1967|pp=63–71}}</ref> the ], ],<ref>]. "Common Fallacies about Capitalism" in {{harvnb|Rand|1967|pp=89–92}}</ref> and existing ] laws.<ref>]. "The Effects of the Industrial Revolution on Women and Children" in {{harvnb|Rand|1967|pp=110–113}}</ref> Objectivists have argued against ],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?&id=7475 |title=Faith-Based Initiatives Are an Assault on Secular Government |last=Epstein |first=Alex |date=February 4, 2003 |publisher=Ayn Rand Institute |access-date=June 19, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120324085647/http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?&id=7475 |archive-date=March 24, 2012 }}</ref> displaying religious symbols in government facilities,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?&id=10889 |title=The Ten Commandments vs. America |first=Harry |last=Binswanger |author-link=Harry Binswanger |date=March 3, 2005 |publisher=Ayn Rand Institute |access-date=June 19, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120324085654/http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?&id=10889 |archive-date=March 24, 2012 }}</ref> and the teaching of "]" in public schools.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?&id=11555 |title='Intelligent Design' Is about Religion versus Reason |newspaper=Orange County Register |first=Keith |last=Lockitch |date=December 11, 2005 |access-date=June 19, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120324085705/http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?&id=11555 |archive-date=March 24, 2012 }}</ref> Rand opposed involuntary ] and believed government could be financed voluntarily, although she thought this could only happen after other reforms of government were implemented.<ref>{{harvnb|Peikoff|1991|p=368}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1964|pp=135–137}}</ref>
It is fair to say that, of people who are familiar with Objectivism, reactions are rarely neutral. Her beliefs are often supported with great passion or derided with great disgust, with little in between. The general reaction of academia has been in the latter category, to the point where Objectivism is often not taken as a serious contribution to the field and therefore unworthy of little more than dismissal. To be specific, critics in academia often conclude that many of the specific stances are demonstrably false rehashes of old errors, and even where the belief system happens to endorse true conclusions, it does so on a fallacious basis. For example, a number of philosophers who completely agree with Rand on the topic of atheism nonetheless find her basis for it laughable and frankly embarrassing.


==== Criticism on politics ====
Although many academics ignore Objectivism, some have published in academic journals on various aspects of Objectivism. Rand published most of her non-fiction essays in her own newsletter The Objectivist and earlier in the journal she edited, in which only those who largely agreed with Objectivism were published. She did not publish in conventional academic journals. Much of the non-fiction Objectivist corpus is available only in the form of audio recordings.
Some critics, including economists and political philosophers such as ], ], ], ], and ], have argued that Objectivist ethics are consistent with ] instead of ].<ref>Childs, Roy (1969). ""</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Barry|1987|pp=128–129}}</ref><ref name="Kukathas"/><ref>{{harvnb|Burns|2009|pp=250–251}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp |last=Rothbard |first=Murray N. |author-link=Murray Rothbard |title=Anatomy of the State: What the State Is Not |website=Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays |year=1974}}</ref>


=== Aesthetics: metaphysical value-judgments ===
Academic institutional support for Objectivism has increased in recent years. Cambridge University Press is publishing Dr. Tara Smith's ''The Virtuous Egoist: Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics.'' There are or have been Objectivist programs and fellowships at the ] (Dept. of History and Philosophy of Science), ]/Austin, ]/Chapel Hill, and several other universities. And there are some 50 members of The Ayn Rand Society, an affiliated group with the American Philosophical Society, Eastern Division. Leonard Peikoff, Ayn Rand's legal heir, published a comprehensive presentation of Objectivism entitled '']''. Other works have been directed at academic audiences, such as ''Viable Values'' by Tara Smith, ''The Evidence of the Senses'' by David Kelley, and ''The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts'' by Harry Binswanger. An academic journal, the ''Journal of Ayn Rand Studies'' has been publishing interdisciplinary scholarly essays on Rand and Objectivism since 1999. Whether this new scholarship and institutional support will result in a dialogue between mainstream academic philosophy and Objectivism remains to be seen.
{{See also|Romantic realism}}
The Objectivist theory of ] derives from its epistemology, by way of "psycho-epistemology" (Rand's term for an individual's characteristic mode of functioning in acquiring knowledge). Art, according to Objectivism, serves a human cognitive need: it allows human beings to understand concepts as though they were ]s. Objectivism defines "art" as a "selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments"—that is, according to what the artist believes to be ultimately true and important about the nature of reality and humanity. In this respect Objectivism regards art as a way of presenting abstractions concretely, in perceptual form.<ref>{{harvnb|Peikoff|1991|p=417}}</ref>


The human need for art, according to this idea, derives from the need for cognitive economy. A concept is already a sort of mental shorthand standing for a large number of concretes, allowing a human being to think indirectly or implicitly of many more such concretes than can be kept explicitly in mind. But a human being cannot keep indefinitely many concepts explicitly in mind either—and yet, according to Objectivism, they need a comprehensive conceptual framework to provide guidance in life. Art offers a way out of this dilemma by providing a perceptual, easily grasped means of communicating and thinking about a wide range of abstractions, including one's metaphysical value-judgments. Objectivism regards art as an effective way to communicate a moral or ethical ideal.<ref>{{harvnb|Peikoff|1991|p=422}}</ref> Objectivism does not, however, regard art as propagandistic: even though art involves moral values and ideals, its purpose is not to educate, only to show or project. Moreover, art need not be, and usually is not, the outcome of a full-blown, explicit philosophy. Usually, it stems from an artist's ''sense of life'' (which is preconceptual and largely emotional).<ref>{{harvnb|Peikoff|1991|p=426}}</ref>
For detailed summaries of specific responses to Objectivism, see ].


The end goal of Rand's own artistic endeavors was to portray the ideal man. ''The Fountainhead'' is the best example of this effort.<ref>{{harvnb|Barr|2012}}</ref> Rand uses the character of Roark to embody the concept of the higher man which she believes is what great art should do—embody the characteristics of the best of humanity. This symbolism should be represented in all art; artistic expression should be an extension of the greatness in humanity.
=== Criticism of Objectivism ===


Rand said that ] was the highest school of literary art, noting that Romanticism was "based on the recognition of the principle that man possesses the faculty of volition", absent which, Rand believed, literature is robbed of dramatic power, adding:
Some people who are not supporters of the beliefs and ideals of Ayn Rand do not describe her philosophy and writings using the allegedly biased terms of "Objectivism" and "Reason", which suggest that those beliefs and ideals are in fact objective and rational. They may use the term "Randian" or "Randist", which to them does not make those assumptions; they believe that the ties between the beliefs and their originator are so strong that following her philosophy necessitates following her.
{{Blockquote|What the Romanticists brought to art was the ''primacy of values''... Values are the source of emotions: a great deal of emotional intensity was projected in the work of the Romanticists and in the reactions of their audiences, as well as a great deal of color, imagination, originality, excitement, and all the other consequences of a value-oriented view of life.<ref>"What is Romanticism?" in {{harvnb|Rand|1971}}</ref>}}


The term "romanticism", however, is often affiliated with emotionalism, to which Objectivism is completely opposed. Historically, many romantic artists were philosophically ]. Most Objectivists who are also artists subscribe to what they term ], which is how Rand described her own work.<ref>{{harvnb|Torres|Kamhi|2000|pp=31–32}}; {{harvnb|Holzer|2005|pp=115–125}}</ref>
Some (such as ]) see the philosophy as being a ] or having a cult-like mentality. Shermer stresses how members of the orthodox movement are expected to consider ] "the greatest human being to ever live" and look at anyone that disagrees with Rand as "irrational." They consider this the opposite of an ] philosophy and, ironically, similar to a ] one. Objectivists often respond to this by saying either that a) the claims are exaggerated, b) the cult-like practices were (unfortunately) irrational but do not disprove the philosophy, or c) such statements are justified because one's confidence in Rand is (or should be) based on reason and one's own individual, reality-oriented values. The defense is often a combination of (a) and (c). Rand herself saw some of this and, likely with irony, called her inner circle "]".


== Development by other authors ==
Like other things associated with Rand, this topic is fiercely debated. The cult accusation is probably the most common attack on Rand and her philosophy, somewhat edging out dismissals of her as an intellectual light-weight (most of her followers didn't have an interest in, or knowledge of, philosophy until reading her work). Rand's defenders assert that the cult accusation distracts people from actually analyzing the philosophy itself. To this, Rand's critics reply with a denial of there being any cohesive philosophy to study, considering it instead a collection of reactions by Rand against popular ideas she opposed. This characterization of Objectivism as a lowbrow anti-philosophy is particularly common among those with academic backgrounds in philosophy.
{{See also|Objectivist movement}}
{{multiple image|perrow=2|total_width=300
| image1 = Leonard Peikoff.tiff |width1=319|height1=425
| image2 = TiborMachan Italy06.jpg |width2=319|height2=425
| image3 = Tara Smith.jpg |width3=319|height3=425
| image4 = Harry Binswanger.jpg |width4=319|height4=425
| footer = Philosophers such as ], ], ] and ] (clockwise from upper left) have worked on Objectivism since Rand's death}}
Several authors have developed and applied Rand's ideas in their own work. Rand described Peikoff's '']'' (1982), as "the first book by an Objectivist philosopher other than myself".<ref>Rand, Ayn. "Introduction". In {{harvnb|Peikoff|1982|p=vii}}</ref> During 1991, Peikoff published '']'', a comprehensive exposition of Rand's philosophy.<ref>{{harvnb|Peikoff|1991|p=iv}}</ref> ] discusses Rand's ideas and theorizes about their intellectual origins in '']'' (1995). Surveys such as '']'' by ] (1999), ''Ayn Rand'' by ] (2000), and ''Objectivism in One Lesson'' by ] (2009) provide briefer introductions to Rand's ideas.


Some scholars have emphasized applying Objectivism to more specific areas. Machan has developed Rand's contextual conception of human knowledge (while also drawing on the insights of ] and ]) in works such as ''Objectivity'' (2004), and ] has explicated Rand's epistemological ideas in works such as ''The Evidence of the Senses'' (1986) and ''A Theory of Abstraction'' (2001). Regarding the topic of ethics, Kelley has argued in works such as ''Unrugged Individualism'' (1996) and ''The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand'' (2000) that Objectivists should pay more attention to the virtue of benevolence and place less emphasis on issues of moral sanction. Kelley's claims have been controversial, and critics Peikoff and ] have argued that he contradicts important principles of Objectivism.<ref name="Fact and Value">{{harvnb|Peikoff|1989b}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Schwartz|1989}}</ref> Kelley has used the term "Open Objectivism" for a version of Objectivism that involves "a commitment to reasoned, non-dogmatic discussion and debate", "the recognition that Objectivism is open to expansion, refinement, and revision", and "a policy of benevolence toward others, including fellow-travelers and critics".<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.atlassociety.org/open_objectivism_david_kelley|website=Atlas Society|title=A Note to Our Members About Open Objectivism|date=October 17, 2008|last=Kelley|first=David}}</ref> Arguing against Kelley, Peikoff characterized Objectivism as a "closed system" that is not subject to change.<ref name="Fact and Value"/>
It should be noted that being critical of Rand does not mean disagreeing with her on every point. If anything, those most critical often agree with her on a number of points, which makes them particularly bothered by both the path she takes to arrive at these conclusions and the other conclusions that they feel she gets entirely wrong. Fundamentally, Rand's philosophy is considered an all-or-nothing proposition, yet many people only agree with parts. It is not uncommon for those who agree with her on either the matter of rationalism and atheism or Libertarianism and egoism to disagree strongly on the other.


An author who emphasizes Rand's ethics, ], retains more of Rand's original ideas in such works as ''Moral Rights and Political Freedom'' (1995), ''Viable Values'' (2000), and ''Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics'' (2006).<ref>{{cite web |title=Comments on Tara Smith's ''Viable Values'' |access-date=May 29, 2009 |date=December 2000 |url=http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/essays/text/irfankhawaja/viablevaluescomment.html |first=Irfan |last=Khawaja }}; {{cite journal |title=Egoism Explained: A Review of Tara Smith's ''Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist'' |journal=The Objective Standard |date=Spring 2007 |volume=2 |issue=1 |url=http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-spring/egoism-explained.asp |first=Diana |last=Hsieh|access-date=May 29, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140328111053/http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-spring/egoism-explained.asp |archive-date=March 28, 2014 }}</ref> In collaboration with Peikoff, David Harriman has developed a theory of ] ] based upon Rand's theory of concepts in ''The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics'' (2010).<ref>Harriman, David, ''The Logical Leap'', 2010, New American Library.</ref>
=== Criticism of Ayn Rand’s reading of the history of philosophy ===


The ] aspects of Rand's philosophy are discussed by Bernstein in ''The Capitalist Manifesto'' (2005). In ''Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics'' (1996), ] attempts to integrate Objectivist methodology and insights with both ] and ]. In psychology, Professor ] and Ellen Kenner have explored Rand's ideas in the publication ''The Selfish Path to Romance: How to Love with Passion & Reason''.<ref>] and Kenner, Ellen, Platform, 2011</ref> Other writers have explored the application of Objectivism to fields ranging from ], as in ''What Art Is'' (2000) by Louis Torres and ], to ], as in ''The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts'' (1990) by ].
Rand regarded her philosophical efforts as the beginning of the correction of a deeply troubled world, and she believed that the world has gotten into its present troubled state largely through the uncritical acceptance, by both intellectuals and others, of traditional philosophy.


== Impact ==
Especially in the title essay of her early work, ''For the New Intellectual'', Rand levels serious criticisms of canonical historical philosophers, especially ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]. In her later book, ''Philosophy: Who Needs It'', she repeats and enlarges upon her criticisms of Kant, and she also accuses famed Harvard political theorist ] of gross philosophical errors. Some have accused Rand of misinterpreting the works of these philosophers (see, e.g., ''Ayn Rand, Objectivists, and the History of Philosophy'' by Fred Seddon).
One Rand biographer says most people who read Rand's works for the first time do it in their "formative years".<ref>{{cite book |title=Ayn Rand and the World She Made |last=Heller |first=Anne C. |location=New York |publisher=Doubleday |year=2009 |isbn=978-0-385-51399-9 |page= |title-link=Ayn Rand and the World She Made }}</ref> Rand's former protégé ] referred to Rand's "especially powerful appeal to the young",<ref>{{cite journal |title=The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand: A Personal Statement |first=Nathaniel |last=Branden |author-link=Nathaniel Branden |journal=] |date=Fall 1984 |volume=24 |issue=4 |url=http://mol.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/NathanielBranden/BenefitsAndHazards.html |pages=29–64 |doi=10.1177/0022167884244004 |s2cid=144772216 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110717195811/http://mol.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/NathanielBranden/BenefitsAndHazards.html |archive-date=July 17, 2011 }}</ref> while {{interlanguage link|Onkar Ghate|eo||sq}} of the ] said Rand "appeals to the idealism of youth".<ref name="Ghate">{{cite web|last=Ghate|first=Onkar|date=February 2, 2008|title=The Appeal of Ayn Rand|url=http://capitalismmagazine.com/2008/02/the-appeal-of-ayn-rand/|access-date=April 22, 2014|website=Capitalism Magazine|archive-date=April 22, 2014|archive-url=https://archive.today/20140422194643/http://capitalismmagazine.com/2008/02/the-appeal-of-ayn-rand/}}</ref> This appeal has alarmed a number of critics of the philosophy.<ref>{{harvnb|Gladstein|1999|p=111}}</ref> Many of these young people later abandon their positive opinion of Rand and are often said to have "outgrown" her ideas.<ref name="Doherty544">{{cite book |title=Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement |last=Doherty |first=Brian |author-link=Brian Doherty (journalist) |location=New York |publisher=Public Affairs |year=2007 |isbn=978-1-58648-350-0 |page=544|title-link=Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement }}</ref> Endorsers of Rand's work recognize the phenomenon, but attribute it to the loss of youthful idealism and inability to resist ]s for intellectual ].<ref name="Ghate"/><ref name="Doherty544"/> In contrast, historian ], writing in '']'' (2009), writes some critics "dismiss Rand as a shallow thinker appealing only to adolescents", although she thinks the critics "miss her significance" as a "]" to ].<ref>{{harvnb|Burns|2009|p=4}}</ref>


Academic philosophers have generally dismissed Objectivism since Rand first presented it.<ref name="academic"/> Objectivism has been termed "fiercely anti-academic" because of Rand's criticism of contemporary intellectuals.<ref name="McLemee"/> ], a professor of moral and political philosophy at Columbia University, writes that Rand's work is "outside the mainstream" and is more of an ] than a comprehensive philosophy.<ref>{{cite news |last=Harvey |first=Benjamin |url=http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050515/NEWS/505150346/1014 |title=Ayn Rand at 100: An 'ism' struts its stuff |newspaper=] |date=May 15, 2005 |access-date=July 20, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071226153815/http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20050515%2FNEWS%2F505150346%2F1014 |archive-date=December 26, 2007 }}</ref> British philosopher ] notes that he deliberately excluded an article on Rand from '']'' (Rand is, however, mentioned in the article on popular philosophy by ]).<ref>{{harvnb|Honderich|2005|pp=x, 740}}</ref> Rand is the subject of entries in the '']'',<ref name="Badhwar 2010"/> ''The Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers'',<ref name=dmap>{{harvnb|Salmieri|Gotthelf|2005}}</ref> the '']'',<ref>{{harvnb|Hicks|2005}}</ref> ''The Routledge Dictionary of Twentieth-Century Political Thinkers'',<ref>{{harvnb|Stevens|1998}}</ref> and ''The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy''.<ref>Mautner, Thomas. ''The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy''. Penguin Books, 2000, p. 469.</ref> Chandran Kukathas writes in an entry about Rand in the '']'', "The influence of Rand's ideas was strongest among college students in the USA but attracted little attention from academic philosophers." Kukathas also writes that her defenses of capitalism and selfishness "kept her out of the intellectual mainstream".<ref name="Kukathas">{{harvnb|Kukathas|1998}}</ref>
Rand's interpretation and criticism of the views of Immanuel Kant, in particular, have sparked considerable controversy.


During the 1990s, Rand's works were more likely to be encountered in American classrooms.<ref name="McLemee"/> The Ayn Rand Society, dedicated to fostering the scholarly study of Objectivism, is affiliated with the ]'s Eastern Division.<ref>{{harvnb|Sciabarra|1995|p=386n.7}}</ref> ] scholar and Objectivist ], late chairman of the Society, and his colleagues argued for more academic study of Objectivism, considering the philosophy as a unique and intellectually interesting defense of ] that is worth debating.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Den Uyl |first=Douglas J. |author-link=Douglas Den Uyl |url=http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/23/rp_23_5.pdf |title=On Rand as Philosopher |journal=Reason Papers |volume=23 |pages=70–71 |year=1998 |access-date=August 8, 2011}}</ref> In 1999, a refereed '']'' began.<ref>{{cite journal |first=Jeff |last=Sharlet |title=Ayn Rand has finally caught the attention of scholars: New books and research projects involve philosophy, political theory, literary criticism, and feminism |journal=The Chronicle of Higher Education |volume=45 |issue=31 |date=April 9, 1999 |pages=17–18}}</ref> Programs and fellowships for the study of Objectivism have been supported at the University of Pittsburgh, ] and ].<ref>{{harvnb|Gladstein|2009|pp=116–117}}; {{harvnb|Burns|2009|p=297}}</ref>
Many critics take issue with Rand's interpretation of Kant's metaphysics: like early critics of Kant, Rand interprets Kant as an empirical idealist. It is a long-standing question of Kant scholarship whether this interpretation is correct; in the second edition of the ''Critique of Pure Reason'', Kant claimed that his transcendental idealism was different from empirical idealism. Contemporary philosophers such as ], James van Cleve, and Rae Langton continue to debate this issue.


== See also ==
Other critics focus on Rand's reading of Kant's ethical philosophy. Rand alleges that Kantian ethics is a version of selflessness, an ethics of self-sacrifice. Kant's defenders claim that Kantian ethics is primarily an ethics of reason, because the categorical imperative amounts to a demand that the intent behind one's actions be logically consistent, or in Kantian terminology, that "the maxim of one's act be universalizable." Though Rand denigrates Kant's system as the absolute opposite of Objectivism, some writers have even suggested that Rand drew on Kantian ideas without realizing it. "She despised Immanuel Kant but then actually invokes 'treating persons as ends rather than as means only' to explain the nature of morality," argues Dr. ]. In Rand's favor, Kant clearly does maintain (in his ''Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals'') that an action solely motivated by inclination or self-interest is entirely lacking in moral worth. Still, fewer commentators have agreed with Rand's characterization of Kantianism as self-sacrificial. The contemporary philosopher Thomas E. Hill has explicitly defended Kant against this charge in his article, "Happiness and Human Flourishing in Kant's Ethics," in the anthology ''Human Flourishing''.
{{Portal|Libertarianism}}
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


== References ==
Another attack on Rand comes from her outright rejection of ]'s ideas at the foundations of her philosophy. Hume famously maintained, "No ''is'' implies an ''ought''," but Rand disagreed by arguing that values are a species of fact (''see'' ]). She wrote, "In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity ''is'', determines what it ''ought'' to do." Some have suggested that Rand's solution begs the question by ''assuming'' that life is the highest value as a hidden premise of the argument. ''See also'' ], ].
{{Reflist|25em}}


== Notes == === Works cited ===
{{Refbegin}}
#{{note|Rand}} Rand, Ayn. (1996) ''Atlas Shrugged''. Signet Book; 35th Anniv edition. Appendix. ISBN 0451191145
* {{cite web|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ayn-rand/|title=Ayn Rand|last1=Badhwar|first1=Neera|author-link1=Neera K. Badhwar|last2=Long|first2=Roderick T.|editor-first=Edward N.|editor-last=Zalta|editor-link=Edward N. Zalta|date=Fall 2020|website=]|access-date=May 20, 2021|name-list-style=amp}}
* {{cite journal|last=Barr |first=Emily J. |title=Sex and the Egoist: Measuring Ayn Rand's Fiction Against Her Philosophy |journal=The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies |volume=12 |issue=2 |date=December 2012 |pages=193–206 |doi=10.2307/41717247 |jstor=41717247}}
* {{cite book|title=On Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism |last=Barry |first=Norman P. |author-link=Norman P. Barry |location=New York |publisher=] |year=1987 |isbn=978-0-312-00243-5 |oclc=14134854}}
* {{cite book|title=Objectivism in One Lesson: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Ayn Rand |last=Bernstein |first=Andrew |author-link=Andrew Bernstein (philosopher) |location=Lanham, MD |publisher=Hamilton Books |year=2009 |isbn=978-0-7618-4359-7}}
* {{cite journal|last=Binswanger |first=Harry |author-link=Harry Binswanger |title=Volition as Cognitive Self-Regulation |journal=] |volume=50 |issue=2 |date=December 1991 |pages=154–178 |doi=10.1016/0749-5978(91)90019-P}}
* {{cite book|title=The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts |last=Binswanger |first=Harry |author-link=Harry Binswanger |location=Los Angeles |publisher=] Press |year=1990 |isbn=978-0-9625336-0-0}}
* {{cite book|title=The Passion of Ayn Rand |last=Branden |first=Barbara |author-link=Barbara Branden |location=New York|publisher=] |year=1987 |isbn=978-0-385-24388-9}}
* {{cite book|title=The Psychology of Self-Esteem |chapter=Man: A Being of Volitional Consciousness |last=Branden |first=Nathaniel |author-link=Nathaniel Branden |location=Los Angeles |publisher=Nash Publishing |year=1969 |isbn=978-0-8402-1109-5 |title-link=The Psychology of Self-Esteem}}
* {{cite book |first=Eric |last=Burns |author-link=Eric Burns |year=2020 |title=1957: The Year that Launched the American Future |location=Lanham, Maryland |publisher=] |isbn=978-1-5381-3995-0}}
* {{cite book|title=Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right |last=Burns |first=Jennifer |author-link=Jennifer Burns (historian) |location=New York |publisher=] |year=2009 |isbn=978-0-19-532487-7 |oclc=313665028 |title-link=Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right}}
* {{cite book |editor-last=Cocks |editor-first=Neil |title=Questioning Ayn Rand: Subjectivity, Political Economy, and the Arts |series=Palgrave Studies in Literature, Culture and Economics |location=Cham, Switzerland |publisher=] |edition=Kindle |date=2020 |isbn=978-3-030-53072-3}}
* {{cite book|editor1-last=Den Uyl |editor1-first=Douglas |editor1-link=Douglas Den Uyl |editor2-last=Rasmussen |editor2-first=Douglas B. |editor2-link=Douglas B. Rasmussen |title=The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand |publisher=] |year=1984 |isbn=978-0-252-01407-9 |title-link=The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand |name-list-style=amp}}
* {{cite book|title=The New Ayn Rand Companion |last=Gladstein |first=Mimi Reisel |author-link=Mimi Reisel Gladstein |location=Westport, CN|publisher=Greenwood Press |year=1999 |isbn=978-0-313-30321-0 |oclc=40359365}}
* {{cite book|title=Ayn Rand |last=Gladstein |first=Mimi Reisel |location=New York |publisher=Continuum |year=2009 |isbn=978-0-8264-4513-1 |oclc=319595162 |series=Major Conservative and Libertarian Thinkers series}}
* {{cite book|title=On Ayn Rand |last=Gotthelf |first=Allan |author-link=Allan Gotthelf |publisher=] |year=2000 |isbn=978-0-534-57625-7 |title-link=On Ayn Rand}}
* {{cite book |title=A Companion to Ayn Rand |editor1-last=Gotthelf |editor1-first=Allan |editor-link1=Allan Gotthelf |editor2-last=Salmieri |editor2-first=Gregory |location=Chichester, United Kingdom |publisher=] |year=2016 |isbn=978-1-4051-8684-1 |series=Blackwell Companions to Philosophy |name-list-style=amp |url=https://archive.org/details/a-companion-to-ayn-rand}}
* {{cite book|title=Metaethics, Egoism, and Virtue: Studies in Ayn Rand's Normative Theory |editor1-last=Gotthelf |editor1-first=Allan |editor2-last=Lennox |editor2-first=James G. |location=Pittsburgh |publisher=University of Pittsburgh Press |year=2010 |isbn=978-0-8229-4400-3 |oclc=617508678 |series=Ayn Rand Society Philosophical Studies |name-list-style=amp}}
* {{cite book|first=Jenny A. |last=Heyl |chapter=Ayn Rand (1905–1982) |editor-first=Mary Ellen |editor-last=Waithe |title=Contemporary Women Philosophers: 1900–today |series=A History of Women Philosophers series |publisher=Kluwer Academic Publishers |location=Boston |year=1995 |isbn=978-0-7923-2808-7 |oclc=30029022 |pages=207–224}}
* {{cite web|last=Hicks |first=Stephen R. C. |author-link=Stephen Hicks |url=http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/rand.htm |title=Ayn Rand (1905-1982) |website=] |date=July 7, 2005 |access-date=March 15, 2011}}
* {{cite book|title=Ayn Rand: My Fiction Writing Teacher |last=Holzer |first=Erika |author-link=Erika Holzer |location=Indio, CA |publisher=Madison Press |year=2005 |isbn=978-0-615-13041-5 |oclc=70662150}}
* {{cite book|title=The Oxford Companion to Philosophy |last=Honderich |first=Ted |author-link=Ted Honderich |location=New York |publisher=] |year=2005 |isbn=978-0-19-926479-7}}
* {{cite book|title=The Evidence of the Senses: A Realist Theory of Perception |last=Kelley |first=David |author-link=David Kelley |location=Baton Rouge|publisher=] Press |year=1986 |isbn=978-0-8071-1268-7}}
* {{cite book|last=Kukathas |first=Chandran |author-link=Chandran Kukathas |year=1998 |chapter=Rand, Ayn (1905–82) |editor-last=Craig |editor-first=Edward |title=Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy |location=New York |publisher=Routledge |volume=8 |pages=55–56 |isbn=978-0-415-07310-3 |oclc=318280731 |title-link=Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy}}
* {{cite book|title=Ayn Rand |last=Machan |first=Tibor R. |author-link=Tibor R. Machan |location=New York |publisher=Peter Lang Publishing |year=2000 |isbn=978-0-8204-4144-3 |oclc=41096316 |series=Masterworks in the Western Tradition}}
* {{cite book|title=The Ominous Parallels: The End of Freedom in America |last=Peikoff |first=Leonard |author-link=Leonard Peikoff |location=New York |publisher=] |year=1982 |isbn=978-0-8128-2850-4 |title-link=The Ominous Parallels}}
* {{cite journal|last=Peikoff |first=Leonard |author-link=Leonard Peikoff |title=Why Should One Act on Principle? |journal=The Intellectual Activist |date=February 27, 1989a |volume=4 |issue=20 |url=https://courses.aynrand.org/works/why-should-one-act-on-principle/}}
* {{cite journal|title=Fact and Value |journal=The Intellectual Activist |date=May 18, 1989b |volume=5 |issue=1 |url=https://peikoff.com/essays_and_articles/fact-and-value/ |first=Leonard |last=Peikoff}}
* {{cite book|title=Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand |last=Peikoff |first=Leonard |author-link=Leonard Peikoff |location=New York |publisher=] |year=1991 |isbn=978-0-452-01101-4 |title-link=Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand}}
* {{cite book|last=Rand |first=Ayn |author-link=Ayn Rand |title=Atlas Shrugged |location=New York |publisher=Dutton |year=1992 |orig-date=1957 |edition=35th anniversary |isbn=978-0-525-94892-6 |title-link=Atlas Shrugged}}
* {{cite book|last=Rand |first=Ayn |title=For the New Intellectual |location=New York |publisher=] |year=1961 |title-link=For the New Intellectual}}
* {{cite book|last=Rand |first=Ayn |title=The Virtue of Selfishness |location=New York |publisher=Signet |year=1964 |edition=paperback |isbn=978-0-451-16393-6 |title-link=The Virtue of Selfishness}}
* {{cite book|last=Rand |first=Ayn |title=Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal |location=New York |publisher=Signet |year=1967 |orig-date=1966 |edition=paperback 2nd |title-link=Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal}}
* {{cite book|last=Rand |first=Ayn |title=Philosophy: Who Needs It |editor-last=Peikoff |editor-first=Leonard |editor-link=Leonard Peikoff |year=1982 |location=New York |publisher=Signet |edition=paperback |isbn=978-0-451-13249-9 |title-link=Philosophy: Who Needs It}}
* {{cite book|last=Rand |first=Ayn |title=Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology |editor1-last=Binswanger |editor1-first=Harry |editor-link1=Harry Binswanger |editor2-last=Peikoff |editor2-first=Leonard |editor-link2=Leonard Peikoff |edition=second |location=New York |publisher=Meridian |year=1990 |isbn=978-0-452-01030-7 |oclc=20353709 |name-list-style=amp |title-link=Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology}}
* {{cite book|last=Rand |first=Ayn |title=The Romantic Manifesto |location=New York |publisher=Signet |year=1971 |edition=paperback |oclc=733753672 |title-link=The Romantic Manifesto}}
* {{cite book|last=Rand |first=Ayn |editor-last=Mayhew |editor-first=Robert |year=2005 |title=Ayn Rand Answers, the Best of Her Q&A |publisher=New American Library |location=New York |isbn=978-0-451-21665-6 |oclc=59148253}}
* {{cite book|editor-first=John |editor-last=Shook |first1=Gregory |last1=Salmieri |first2=Allan |last2=Gotthelf |chapter=Ayn Rand |title=The Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers |publisher=Thoemmes Continuum |location=London |year=2005 |isbn=978-1-84371-037-0 |name-list-style=amp}}
* {{cite journal|title=On Moral Sanctions |journal=The Intellectual Activist |date=May 18, 1989 |volume=5 |issue=1 |url=http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_sanctions |first=Peter |last=Schwartz |access-date=May 29, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130806002155/http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_sanctions |archive-date=August 6, 2013 }}
* {{cite book|title=Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical |last=Sciabarra |first=Chris Matthew |author-link=Chris Matthew Sciabarra |location=University Park|publisher=Pennsylvania State University Press |year=1995 |isbn=978-0-271-01440-1 |oclc=31133644 |title-link=Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical}}
* {{cite book|title=Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical |last=Sciabarra |first=Chris Matthew |location=University Park|publisher=Pennsylvania State University Press |year=2013 |isbn=978-0-271-06227-3 |oclc=853618653 |title-link=Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical}}
* {{cite book|title=Viable Values: A Study of Life as the Root and Reward of Morality |last=Smith |first=Tara |author-link=Tara Smith (philosopher) |location=Lanham, MD |publisher=] |year=2000 |isbn=978-0-8476-9760-1 |oclc=42397381}}
* {{cite book|title=Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist |last=Smith |first=Tara |location=New York |publisher=] |year=2006 |isbn= 978-0-521-86050-5 |oclc=60971741}}
* {{cite book|title=Moral Rights and Political Freedom |last=Smith |first=Tara |location=Lanham, MD |publisher=] |year=1997 |isbn=978-0-8476-8026-9 |oclc=31710378}}
* {{cite book|editor1-first=Robert |editor1-last=Benewick |editor2-first=Philip |editor2-last=Green |first=Jacqueline |last=Stevens |chapter=Ayn Rand |title=The Routledge Dictionary of Twentieth-Century Political Thinkers |publisher=Routledge |location=London |year=1998 |edition=2nd |isbn=978-0-415-15881-7 |pages= |name-list-style=amp |chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/routledgediction0000unse_v6p4/page/263 }}
* {{cite book|title=What Art Is: The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand |last1=Torres |first1=Louis |last2=Kamhi |first2=Michelle Marder |location=Chicago |publisher=Open Court Publishing |year=2000 |isbn=978-0-8126-9372-0 |oclc=43787446 |name-list-style=amp}}
* {{cite book|title=Then Athena Said: Unilateral Transfers and the Transformation of Objectivist Ethics |last=Touchstone |first=Kathleen |location=Lanham, MD|publisher=University Press of America |year=2006 |isbn=978-0-7618-3519-6 |oclc=70783649}}
{{Refend}}


== See also == == Further reading ==
* {{cite encyclopedia |last=Kelley |first=David |author-link=David Kelley |editor-first=Ronald|editor-last=Hamowy|editor-link=Ronald Hamowy|encyclopedia=The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=yxNgXs3TkJYC |year=2008 |publisher= ]; ] |location= Thousand Oaks, CA |doi=10.4135/9781412965811.n221 |isbn= 978-1-4129-6580-4 |oclc=750831024| lccn = 2008009151 |pages=363–364 |chapter=Objectivism }}

*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]


== External links == == External links ==
{{Commons category}}
*
*
* &nbsp;– an Objectivist website and publishers of ''Capitalism'' on-line magazine
*


{{Ayn Rand|state=expanded}}
*
{{libertarianism}}
*
{{philosophy topics}}
* &mdash; Argues that some positions of the Ayn Rand Institute differ from those of Ayn Rand.
{{Authority control}}
*
*
* &mdash; The Daily Dose of Reason: psychology, life coaching and comments on cultural/political topics from an Objectivist perspective &mdash; also, The Living Resources Newsletter and Dr. Hurd's publications
* &mdash; Daily news and commentary from the Objectivist perspective by e-mail
*
*
*
*
* includes both advocacy and criticism articles
*




{{Philosophy Quick Topic Guide}}

]
]
]


]<!-- Eponymous category first. -->
]
]
]
] ]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 22:55, 18 October 2024

Philosophical system developed by Ayn Rand "Objectivist philosophy" redirects here. For objectivity in philosophy, see Objectivity (philosophy). For other uses, see Objectivism (disambiguation).

Objectivist movement
Photo of Ayn RandAyn Rand
Philosophy
Organizations
Theorists

Ayn Rand Institute

Other

LiteratureCapitalism: The Unknown Ideal
For the New Intellectual
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology
The New Left
Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand
Philosophy: Who Needs It
The Romantic Manifesto
The Virtue of Selfishness
Objectivist periodicals
The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies
The Fountainhead
Atlas Shrugged
Related topics

Objectivism is a philosophical system named and developed by Russian-American writer and philosopher Ayn Rand. She described it as "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute".

Rand first expressed Objectivism in her fiction, most notably The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957), and later in non-fiction essays and books. Leonard Peikoff, a professional philosopher and Rand's designated intellectual heir, later gave it a more formal structure. Peikoff characterizes Objectivism as a "closed system" insofar as its "fundamental principles" were set out by Rand and are not subject to change. However, he stated that "new implications, applications and integrations can always be discovered".

Objectivism's main tenets are that reality exists independently of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception (see direct and indirect realism), that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (see rational egoism), that the only social system consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism, and that the role of art in human life is to transform humans' metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally.

Academic philosophers have generally paid little attention to or dismissed Rand's philosophy, although a smaller number of academics do support it. Nonetheless, Objectivism has been a persistent influence among right-libertarians and American conservatives. The Objectivist movement, which Rand founded, attempts to spread her ideas to the public and in academic settings.

Philosophy

Photo of Rand
Ayn Rand in 1957

Rand originally expressed her ideas in her novels—most notably, in both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. She further elaborated on them in her periodicals The Objectivist Newsletter, The Objectivist, and The Ayn Rand Letter, and in non-fiction books such as Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and The Virtue of Selfishness.

The name "Objectivism" derives from the idea that human knowledge and values are objective: they exist and are determined by the nature of reality, to be discovered by one's mind, and are not created by the thoughts one has. Rand stated that she chose the name because her preferred term for a philosophy based on the primacy of existence—"existentialism"—had already been taken.

Rand characterized Objectivism as "a philosophy for living on earth", based on reality, and intended as a method of defining human nature and the nature of the world in which we live.

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

— Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Metaphysics: objective reality

Rand's philosophy begins with three axioms: existence, consciousness, and identity. Rand defined an axiom as "a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained in all others whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not. An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it." As Objectivist philosopher Leonard Peikoff argued, Rand's argument for axioms "is not a proof that the axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity are true. It is proof that they are axioms, that they are at the base of knowledge and thus inescapable."

Rand said that existence is the perceptually self-evident fact at the base of all other knowledge, i.e., that "existence exists". She further said that to be is to be something, that "existence is identity". That is, to be is to be "an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes". That which has no nature or attributes does not and cannot exist. The axiom of existence is conceptualized as differentiating something from nothing, while the law of identity is conceptualized as differentiating one thing from another, i.e., one's first awareness of the law of non-contradiction, another crucial base for the rest of knowledge. As Rand wrote, "A leaf ... cannot be all red and green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time... A is A." Objectivism rejects belief in anything alleged to transcend existence.

Rand argued that consciousness is "the faculty of perceiving that which exists". As she put it, "to be conscious is to be conscious of something", that is consciousness itself cannot be distinguished or conceptualized except in relation to an independent reality. "It cannot be aware only of itself—there is no 'itself' until it is aware of something." Thus, Objectivism posits that the mind does not create reality, but rather, it is a means of discovering reality. Expressed differently, existence has "primacy" over consciousness, which must conform to it. Any other type of argument Rand termed "the primacy of consciousness", including any variant of metaphysical subjectivism or theism.

Objectivist philosophy derives its explanations of action and causation from the axiom of identity, referring to causation as "the law of identity applied to action". According to Rand, it is entities that act, and every action is the action of an entity. The way entities act is caused by the specific nature (or "identity") of those entities; if they were different, they would act differently. As with the other axioms, an implicit understanding of causation is derived from one's primary observations of causal connections among entities even before it is verbally identified and serves as the basis of further knowledge.

Epistemology: reason

According to Rand, attaining knowledge beyond what is given by perception requires both volition (or the exercise of free will) and performing a specific method of validation by observation, concept-formation, and the application of inductive and deductive reasoning. For example, a belief in dragons, however sincere, does not mean that reality includes dragons. A process of proof identifying the basis in reality of a claimed item of knowledge is necessary to establish its truth.

Objectivist epistemology begins with the principle that "consciousness is identification". This is understood to be a direct consequence of the metaphysical principle that "existence is identity". Rand defined "reason" as "the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses". Rand wrote "The fundamental concept of method, the one on which all the others depend, is logic. The distinguishing characteristic of logic (the art of non-contradictory identification) indicates the nature of the actions (actions of consciousness required to achieve a correct identification) and their goal (knowledge)—while omitting the length, complexity or specific steps of the process of logical inference, as well as the nature of the particular cognitive problem involved in any given instance of using logic."

According to Rand, consciousness possesses a specific and finite identity, just like everything else that exists; therefore, it must operate by a specific method of validation. An item of knowledge cannot be "disqualified" by being arrived at by a specific process in a particular form. Thus, for Rand, the fact that consciousness must itself possess identity implies the rejection of both universal skepticism based on the "limits" of consciousness, as well as any claim to revelation, emotion or faith-based belief.

Objectivist epistemology maintains that all knowledge is ultimately based on perception. "Percepts, not sensations, are the given, the self-evident." Rand considered the validity of the senses to be axiomatic and said that purported arguments to the contrary all commit the fallacy of the "stolen concept" by presupposing the validity of concepts that, in turn, presuppose the validity of the senses. She said that perception, being determined physiologically, is incapable of error. For example, optical illusions are errors in the conceptual identification of what is seen, not errors of sight itself. The validity of sense perception, therefore, is not susceptible to proof (because it is presupposed by all proof as proof is only a matter of adducing sensory evidence) nor should its validity be denied (since the conceptual tools one would have to use to do this are derived from sensory data). Perceptual error, therefore, is not possible. Rand consequently rejected epistemological skepticism, as she said that the skeptics' claim to knowledge "distorted" by the form or the means of perception is impossible.

The Objectivist theory of perception distinguishes between the form and object. The form in which an organism perceives is determined by the physiology of its sensory systems. Whatever form the organism perceives it in, what it perceives—the object of perception—is reality. Rand consequently rejected the Kantian dichotomy between "things as we perceive them" and "things as they are in themselves". Rand wrote:

The attack on man's consciousness and particularly on his conceptual faculty has rested on the unchallenged premise that any knowledge acquired by a process of consciousness is necessarily subjective and cannot correspond to the facts of reality, since it is processed knowledge … all knowledge is processed knowledge—whether on the sensory, perceptual or conceptual level. An "unprocessed" knowledge would be a knowledge acquired without means of cognition.

book cover
Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology explains her theory of concept formation.

The aspect of epistemology given the most elaboration by Rand is the theory of concept-formation, which she presented in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. She argued that concepts are formed by a process of measurement omission. Peikoff described this as follows:

To form a concept, one mentally isolates a group of concretes (of distinct perceptual units), on the basis of observed similarities which distinguish them from all other known concretes (similarity is 'the relationship between two or more existents which possess the same characteristic(s), but in different measure or degree'); then, by a process of omitting the particular measurements of these concretes, one integrates them into a single new mental unit: the concept, which subsumes all concretes of this kind (a potentially unlimited number). The integration is completed and retained by the selection of a perceptual symbol (a word) to designate it. "A concept is a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristic(s), with their particular measurements omitted."

According to Rand, "the term 'measurements omitted' does not mean, in this context, that measurements are regarded as non-existent; it means that measurements exist, but are not specified. That measurements must exist is an essential part of the process. The principle is: the relevant measurements must exist in some quantity, but may exist in any quantity."

Rand argued that concepts are organized hierarchically. Concepts such as 'dog,' which bring together "concretes" available in perception, can be differentiated (into the concepts of 'dachshund,' 'poodle,' etc.) or integrated (along with 'cat,' etc., into the concept of 'animal'). Abstract concepts such as 'animal' can be further integrated, via "abstraction from abstractions", into such concepts as 'living thing.' Concepts are formed in the context of knowledge available. A young child differentiates dogs from cats and chickens but need not explicitly differentiate them from deep-sea tube worms, or from other types of animals not yet known to him, to form a concept 'dog'.

Because of its characterization of concepts as "open-ended" classifications that go well beyond the characteristics included in their past or current definitions, Objectivist epistemology rejects the analytic-synthetic distinction as a false dichotomy and denies the possibility of a priori knowledge.

Rand rejected "feeling" as sources of knowledge. Rand acknowledged the importance of emotion for human beings, but she maintained that emotions are a consequence of the conscious or subconscious ideas that a person already accepts, not a means of achieving awareness of reality. "Emotions are not tools of cognition." Rand also rejected all forms of faith or mysticism, terms that she used synonymously. She defined faith as "the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one's senses and reason... Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as 'instinct,' 'intuition,' 'revelation,' or any form of 'just knowing.'" Reliance on revelation is like reliance on a Ouija board; it bypasses the need to show how it connects its results to reality. Faith, for Rand, is not a "short-cut" to knowledge, but a "short-circuit" destroying it.

Objectivism acknowledges the facts that human beings have limited knowledge, are vulnerable to error, and do not instantly understand all of the implications of their knowledge. According to Peikoff, one can be certain of a proposition if all of the available evidence verifies it, i.e., it can be logically integrated with the rest of one's knowledge; one is then certain within the context of the evidence.

Rand rejected the traditional rationalist/empiricist dichotomy, arguing that it embodies a false alternative: conceptually based knowledge independent of perception (rationalism) versus perceptually based knowledge independent of concepts (empiricism). Rand argued that neither is possible because the senses provide the material of knowledge while conceptual processing is also needed to establish knowable propositions.

Criticism on epistemology

The philosopher John Hospers, who was influenced by Rand and shared her moral and political opinions, disagreed with her concerning issues of epistemology. Some philosophers, such as Tibor Machan, have argued that the Objectivist epistemology is incomplete.

Psychology professor Robert L. Campbell writes that the relationship between Objectivist epistemology and cognitive science remains unclear because Rand made claims about human cognition and its development which belong to psychology, yet Rand also argued that philosophy is logically prior to psychology and in no way dependent on it.

The philosophers Randall Dipert and Roderick Long [ar; arz; es; ru; zh] have argued that Objectivist epistemology conflates the perceptual process by which judgments are formed with the way in which they are to be justified, thereby leaving it unclear how sensory data can validate judgments structured propositionally.

Ethics: self-interest

Objectivism includes an extensive treatment of ethical concerns. Rand wrote on morality in her works We the Living (1936), Atlas Shrugged (1957) and The Virtue of Selfishness (1964). Rand defines morality as "a code of values to guide man's choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life". Rand maintained that the first question is not what should the code of values be, the first question is "Does man need values at all—and why?" According to Rand, "it is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible", and "the fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do". Rand writes: "there is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death".

Rand argued that the primary emphasis of man's free will is the choice: 'to think or not to think'. "Thinking is not an automatic function. In any hour and issue of his life, man is free to think or to evade that effort. Thinking requires a state of full, focused awareness. The act of focusing one's consciousness is volitional. Man can focus his mind to a full, active, purposefully directed awareness of reality—or he can unfocus it and let himself drift in a semiconscious daze, merely reacting to any chance stimulus of the immediate moment, at the mercy of his undirected sensory-perceptual mechanism and of any random, associational connections it might happen to make." According to Rand, therefore, possessing free will, human beings must choose their values: one does not automatically have one's own life as his ultimate value. Whether in fact a person's actions promote and fulfill his own life or not is a question of fact, as it is with all other organisms, but whether a person will act to promote his well-being is up to him, not hard-wired into his physiology. "Man has the power to act as his own destroyer—and that is the way he has acted through most of his history."

In Atlas Shrugged, Rand wrote "Man's mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive he must act and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch—or build a cyclotron—without a knowledge of his aim and the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think." In her novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, she also emphasizes the importance of productive work, romantic love and art to human happiness, and dramatizes the ethical character of their pursuit. The primary virtue in Objectivist ethics is rationality, as Rand meant it "the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action".

The purpose of a moral code, Rand said, is to provide the principles by reference to which man can achieve the values his survival requires. Rand summarizes:

If chooses to live, a rational ethics will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choice. If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course. Reality confronts a man with a great many "must's", but all of them are conditional: the formula of realistic necessity is: "you must, if –" and the if stands for man's choice: "if you want to achieve a certain goal".

Rand's explanation of values presents the proposition that an individual's primary moral obligation is to achieve his own well-being—it is for his life and his self-interest that an individual ought to obey a moral code. Ethical egoism is a corollary of setting man's life as the moral standard. Rand believed that rational egoism is the logical consequence of humans following evidence to its logical conclusion. The only alternative would be that they live without orientation to reality.

A corollary to Rand's endorsement of self-interest is her rejection of the ethical doctrine of altruism—which she defined in the sense of Auguste Comte's altruism (he popularized the term), as a moral obligation to live for the sake of others. Rand also rejected subjectivism. A "whim-worshiper" or "hedonist", according to Rand, is not motivated by a desire to live his own human life, but by a wish to live on a sub-human level. Instead of using "that which promotes my (human) life" as his standard of value, he mistakes "that which I (mindlessly happen to) value" for a standard of value, in contradiction of the fact that, existentially, he is a human and therefore rational organism. The "I value" in whim-worship or hedonism can be replaced with "we value", "he values", "they value", or "God values", and still, it would remain dissociated from reality. Rand repudiated the equation of rational selfishness with hedonistic or whim-worshiping "selfishness-without-a-self". She said that the former is good, and the latter bad, and that there is a fundamental difference between them.

For Rand, all of the principal virtues are applications of the role of reason as man's basic tool of survival: rationality, honesty, justice, independence, integrity, productiveness, and pride—each of which she explains in some detail in "The Objectivist Ethics". The essence of Objectivist ethics is summarized by the oath her Atlas Shrugged character John Galt adhered to: "I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Criticism on ethics

Some philosophers have criticized Objectivist ethics. The philosopher Robert Nozick argues that Rand's foundational argument in ethics is unsound because it does not explain why someone could not rationally prefer dying and having no values, in order to further some particular value. He argues that her attempt to defend the morality of selfishness is, therefore, an instance of begging the question. Nozick also argues that Rand's solution to David Hume's famous is-ought problem is unsatisfactory. In response, the philosophers Douglas B. Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl have argued that Nozick misstated Rand's case.

Charles King criticized Rand's example of an indestructible robot to demonstrate the value of life as incorrect and confusing. In response, Paul St. F. Blair defended Rand's ethical conclusions, while maintaining that his arguments might not have been approved by Rand.

Politics: individual rights and capitalism

Rand's defense of individual liberty integrates elements from her entire philosophy. Since reason is the means of human knowledge, it is therefore each person's most fundamental means of survival and is necessary to the achievement of values. The use or threat of force neutralizes the practical effect of an individual's reason, whether the force originates from the state or from a criminal. According to Rand, "man's mind will not function at the point of a gun". Therefore, the only type of organized human behavior consistent with the operation of reason is that of voluntary cooperation. Persuasion is the method of reason. By its nature, the overtly irrational cannot rely on the use of persuasion and must ultimately resort to force to prevail. Thus, Rand argued that reason and freedom are correlates, just as she argued that mysticism and force are corollaries. Based on this understanding of the role of reason, Objectivists claim that the initiation of physical force against the will of another is immoral, as are indirect initiations of force through threats, fraud, or breach of contract. The use of defensive or retaliatory force, on the other hand, is appropriate.

Objectivism claims that because the opportunity to use reason without the initiation of force is necessary to achieve moral values, each individual has an inalienable moral right to act as his own judgment directs and to keep the product of his effort. Peikoff, explaining the basis of rights, stated, "In content, as the founding fathers recognized, there is one fundamental right, which has several major derivatives. The fundamental right is the right to life. Its major derivatives are the right to liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness." "A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context." These rights are specifically understood to be rights to action, not to specific results or objects, and the obligations created by rights are negative in nature: each individual must refrain from violating the rights of others. Objectivists reject alternative notions of rights, such as positive rights, collective rights, or animal rights. Objectivism claims that the only social system which fully recognizes individual rights is capitalism, specifically what Rand described as "full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism". Objectivism regards capitalism as the social system which is most beneficial to the poor, but does not consider this its primary justification. Rather, it is the only moral social system. Objectivism maintains that only societies seeking to establish freedom (or free nations) have a right to self-determination.

Objectivism describes government as "the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws"; thus, government is both legitimate and critically important in order to protect individual rights. Rand opposed anarchism because she considered that putting police and courts on the market is an inherent miscarriage of justice. Objectivism claims that the proper functions of a government are "the police, to protect men from criminals—the armed services, to protect men from foreign invaders—the law courts, to settle disputes among men according to objective laws", the executive, and legislatures. Furthermore, in protecting individual rights, the government is acting as an agent of its citizens and "has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens" and it must act in an impartial manner according to specific, objectively defined laws.

Rand argued that limited intellectual property monopolies being granted to certain inventors and artists on a first-to-file basis are moral because she considered all property as fundamentally intellectual. Furthermore, the value of a commercial product derives in part from the necessary work of its inventors. However, Rand considered limits on patents and copyrights as important and said that if they were granted in perpetuity, it would necessarily result in de facto collectivism.

Rand opposed racism and any legal application of racism. She considered affirmative action to be an example of legal racism. Rand advocated the right to legal abortion. Rand believed capital punishment is morally justified as retribution against a murderer, but dangerous due to the risk of mistakenly executing innocent people and facilitating state murder. She therefore said she opposed capital punishment "on epistemological, not moral, grounds". She opposed involuntary military conscription. She opposed any form of censorship, including legal restrictions on pornography, opinion or worship, famously quipping; "In the transition to statism, every infringement of human rights has begun with a given right's least attractive practitioners".

Objectivists have also opposed a number of government activities commonly endorsed by both liberals and conservatives, including antitrust laws, the minimum wage, public education, and existing child labor laws. Objectivists have argued against faith-based initiatives, displaying religious symbols in government facilities, and the teaching of "intelligent design" in public schools. Rand opposed involuntary taxation and believed government could be financed voluntarily, although she thought this could only happen after other reforms of government were implemented.

Criticism on politics

Some critics, including economists and political philosophers such as Murray Rothbard, David D. Friedman, Roy Childs, Norman P. Barry, and Chandran Kukathas, have argued that Objectivist ethics are consistent with anarcho-capitalism instead of minarchism.

Aesthetics: metaphysical value-judgments

See also: Romantic realism

The Objectivist theory of art derives from its epistemology, by way of "psycho-epistemology" (Rand's term for an individual's characteristic mode of functioning in acquiring knowledge). Art, according to Objectivism, serves a human cognitive need: it allows human beings to understand concepts as though they were percepts. Objectivism defines "art" as a "selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments"—that is, according to what the artist believes to be ultimately true and important about the nature of reality and humanity. In this respect Objectivism regards art as a way of presenting abstractions concretely, in perceptual form.

The human need for art, according to this idea, derives from the need for cognitive economy. A concept is already a sort of mental shorthand standing for a large number of concretes, allowing a human being to think indirectly or implicitly of many more such concretes than can be kept explicitly in mind. But a human being cannot keep indefinitely many concepts explicitly in mind either—and yet, according to Objectivism, they need a comprehensive conceptual framework to provide guidance in life. Art offers a way out of this dilemma by providing a perceptual, easily grasped means of communicating and thinking about a wide range of abstractions, including one's metaphysical value-judgments. Objectivism regards art as an effective way to communicate a moral or ethical ideal. Objectivism does not, however, regard art as propagandistic: even though art involves moral values and ideals, its purpose is not to educate, only to show or project. Moreover, art need not be, and usually is not, the outcome of a full-blown, explicit philosophy. Usually, it stems from an artist's sense of life (which is preconceptual and largely emotional).

The end goal of Rand's own artistic endeavors was to portray the ideal man. The Fountainhead is the best example of this effort. Rand uses the character of Roark to embody the concept of the higher man which she believes is what great art should do—embody the characteristics of the best of humanity. This symbolism should be represented in all art; artistic expression should be an extension of the greatness in humanity.

Rand said that Romanticism was the highest school of literary art, noting that Romanticism was "based on the recognition of the principle that man possesses the faculty of volition", absent which, Rand believed, literature is robbed of dramatic power, adding:

What the Romanticists brought to art was the primacy of values... Values are the source of emotions: a great deal of emotional intensity was projected in the work of the Romanticists and in the reactions of their audiences, as well as a great deal of color, imagination, originality, excitement, and all the other consequences of a value-oriented view of life.

The term "romanticism", however, is often affiliated with emotionalism, to which Objectivism is completely opposed. Historically, many romantic artists were philosophically subjectivist. Most Objectivists who are also artists subscribe to what they term romantic realism, which is how Rand described her own work.

Development by other authors

See also: Objectivist movement Philosophers such as Leonard Peikoff, Tibor Machan, Harry Binswanger and Tara Smith (clockwise from upper left) have worked on Objectivism since Rand's death

Several authors have developed and applied Rand's ideas in their own work. Rand described Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels (1982), as "the first book by an Objectivist philosopher other than myself". During 1991, Peikoff published Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, a comprehensive exposition of Rand's philosophy. Chris Matthew Sciabarra discusses Rand's ideas and theorizes about their intellectual origins in Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical (1995). Surveys such as On Ayn Rand by Allan Gotthelf (1999), Ayn Rand by Tibor R. Machan (2000), and Objectivism in One Lesson by Andrew Bernstein (2009) provide briefer introductions to Rand's ideas.

Some scholars have emphasized applying Objectivism to more specific areas. Machan has developed Rand's contextual conception of human knowledge (while also drawing on the insights of J. L. Austin and Gilbert Harman) in works such as Objectivity (2004), and David Kelley has explicated Rand's epistemological ideas in works such as The Evidence of the Senses (1986) and A Theory of Abstraction (2001). Regarding the topic of ethics, Kelley has argued in works such as Unrugged Individualism (1996) and The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand (2000) that Objectivists should pay more attention to the virtue of benevolence and place less emphasis on issues of moral sanction. Kelley's claims have been controversial, and critics Peikoff and Peter Schwartz have argued that he contradicts important principles of Objectivism. Kelley has used the term "Open Objectivism" for a version of Objectivism that involves "a commitment to reasoned, non-dogmatic discussion and debate", "the recognition that Objectivism is open to expansion, refinement, and revision", and "a policy of benevolence toward others, including fellow-travelers and critics". Arguing against Kelley, Peikoff characterized Objectivism as a "closed system" that is not subject to change.

An author who emphasizes Rand's ethics, Tara Smith, retains more of Rand's original ideas in such works as Moral Rights and Political Freedom (1995), Viable Values (2000), and Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics (2006). In collaboration with Peikoff, David Harriman has developed a theory of scientific induction based upon Rand's theory of concepts in The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics (2010).

The political aspects of Rand's philosophy are discussed by Bernstein in The Capitalist Manifesto (2005). In Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (1996), George Reisman attempts to integrate Objectivist methodology and insights with both Classical and Austrian economics. In psychology, Professor Edwin A. Locke and Ellen Kenner have explored Rand's ideas in the publication The Selfish Path to Romance: How to Love with Passion & Reason. Other writers have explored the application of Objectivism to fields ranging from art, as in What Art Is (2000) by Louis Torres and Michelle Marder Kamhi, to teleology, as in The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts (1990) by Harry Binswanger.

Impact

One Rand biographer says most people who read Rand's works for the first time do it in their "formative years". Rand's former protégé Nathaniel Branden referred to Rand's "especially powerful appeal to the young", while Onkar Ghate [eo; sq] of the Ayn Rand Institute said Rand "appeals to the idealism of youth". This appeal has alarmed a number of critics of the philosophy. Many of these young people later abandon their positive opinion of Rand and are often said to have "outgrown" her ideas. Endorsers of Rand's work recognize the phenomenon, but attribute it to the loss of youthful idealism and inability to resist social pressures for intellectual conformity. In contrast, historian Jennifer Burns, writing in Goddess of the Market (2009), writes some critics "dismiss Rand as a shallow thinker appealing only to adolescents", although she thinks the critics "miss her significance" as a "gateway drug" to right-wing politics.

Academic philosophers have generally dismissed Objectivism since Rand first presented it. Objectivism has been termed "fiercely anti-academic" because of Rand's criticism of contemporary intellectuals. David Sidorsky, a professor of moral and political philosophy at Columbia University, writes that Rand's work is "outside the mainstream" and is more of an ideology than a comprehensive philosophy. British philosopher Ted Honderich notes that he deliberately excluded an article on Rand from The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (Rand is, however, mentioned in the article on popular philosophy by Anthony Quinton). Rand is the subject of entries in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Routledge Dictionary of Twentieth-Century Political Thinkers, and The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy. Chandran Kukathas writes in an entry about Rand in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "The influence of Rand's ideas was strongest among college students in the USA but attracted little attention from academic philosophers." Kukathas also writes that her defenses of capitalism and selfishness "kept her out of the intellectual mainstream".

During the 1990s, Rand's works were more likely to be encountered in American classrooms. The Ayn Rand Society, dedicated to fostering the scholarly study of Objectivism, is affiliated with the American Philosophical Association's Eastern Division. Aristotle scholar and Objectivist Allan Gotthelf, late chairman of the Society, and his colleagues argued for more academic study of Objectivism, considering the philosophy as a unique and intellectually interesting defense of classical liberalism that is worth debating. In 1999, a refereed Journal of Ayn Rand Studies began. Programs and fellowships for the study of Objectivism have been supported at the University of Pittsburgh, University of Texas at Austin and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

See also

References

  1. ^ "About the Author" in Rand 1992, pp. 1170–1171
  2. ^ Badhwar & Long 2020
  3. Contemporary Authors Online, s.v. "Leonard Peikoff". Accessed March 2, 2008.
  4. ^ McLemee, Scott (September 1999). "The Heirs Of Ayn Rand: Has Objectivism Gone Subjective?". Lingua Franca. 9 (6): 45–55.
  5. ^ Peikoff 1989b
  6. ^ Sciabarra 2013, p. 1; Badhwar & Long 2020; Gotthelf 2000, p. 1; Machan 2000, p. 9; Heyl 1995, p. 223; Burns 2020, p. 259; Cocks 2020, p. 11
  7. Sciabarra 2013, p. 2; Salmieri, Gregory. "An Introduction to the Study of Ayn Rand". In Gotthelf & Salmieri 2016, p. 5
  8. Burns 2009, p. 4; Gladstein 2009, pp. 107–108, 124
  9. Sciabarra 1995, pp. 1–2
  10. ^ Rubin, Harriet (September 15, 2007). "Ayn Rand's Literature of Capitalism". The New York Times. Retrieved September 18, 2007.
  11. Rand 1967, p. 23
  12. Peikoff 1991, p. 36
  13. Peikoff 1991, pp. 4–11
  14. Rand 1992, p. 1040.
  15. Peikoff 1991, p. 11
  16. Rand, Ayn (1996) . For the New Intellectual: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. New York: Signet. ISBN 0-451-16308-7.
  17. Rand 1992, p. 1016.
  18. Peikoff 1991, pp. 31–33
  19. Peikoff 1991, p. 5
  20. Gotthelf 2000
  21. Rand 1990
  22. Rand 1982, pp. 24–28
  23. Rand 1992, p. 1037
  24. Peikoff 1991, p. 14
  25. Peikoff 1991, pp. 116–121
  26. Rand 1961, p. 124
  27. Rand 1964, p. 22
  28. Rand 1990, p. 36
  29. Rand 1990, p. 5
  30. Branden, Nathaniel (January 1963). "The Stolen Concept". The Objectivist Newsletter. 2 (1): 2, 4.
  31. Rand 1990, p. 3
  32. ^ Kelley 1986
  33. Kelley 1986; Peikoff 1991, pp. 44–48
  34. Rand 1990, p. 81
  35. Peikoff, Leonard. "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy". In Rand 1990, pp. 97–98. The quotes within this passage are of Rand's material elsewhere in the same book.
  36. Rand 1990, p. 12; for more on Rand's theory of concepts see also Kelley, David "A Theory of Abstraction" and "The Psychology of Abstraction", Cognition and Brain Theory vol. vii, no. 3 and 4 (Summer/Fall 1984), and Rasmussen, Douglas B., "Quine and Aristotelian Essentialism", The New Scholasticism 58 (Summer, 1984)
  37. Rand 1990, pp. 15–28
  38. Peikoff, Leonard. "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy". In Rand 1990, p. 94
  39. Peikoff, Leonard. "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy". In Rand 1990, pp. 116–118
  40. Rand 1961, p. 64
  41. Rand 1982, pp. 62–63
  42. Rand 1961, p. 223; Peikoff 1991, pp. 182–185
  43. Lecture by Leonard Peikoff, cited in Sciabarra 1995.
  44. Peikoff 1991, pp. 171–181
  45. Branden 1987, p. 323
  46. For example, Machan 2000, pp. 134–151
  47. Rand 1990, p. 289
  48. Campbell, R. L. (Fall 1999). "Ayn Rand and the Cognitive Revolution in Psychology". Journal of Ayn Rand Studies. 1 (1): 107–134.
  49. Dipert, Randall R. (Spring 1987). "Review Essay: David Kelley's Evidence of the Senses: A Realist Theory of Perception" (PDF). Reason Papers (12): 57–70.
  50. Long, Roderick T. (2000). Reason and Value: Rand versus Aristotle. Objectivist Studies Monographs. Poughkeepsie, NY: The Objectivist Center. ISBN 978-1-57724-045-7. OCLC 49875339.
  51. Rand 1964, p. 13.
  52. Rand 1964, p. 18; for more on Rand's metaethics see Binswanger 1990, pp. 58–66, Smith 2000 and Gotthelf & Lennox 2010
  53. Rand 1964, p. 22; for more on Rand's theory of volition, see Binswanger 1991; Branden 1969; and Peikoff 1991, pp. 55–72.
  54. Rand 1992, p. 1013
  55. Rand 1992, p. 1012
  56. Rand 1964, p. 25; Smith 2006, p. 7
  57. Peikoff 1989a
  58. Rand 1982, pp. 118–119
  59. Smith 2006, pp. 23–24
  60. Peikoff 1991, p. 230
  61. "altruism (n .)". Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper. Retrieved May 27, 2021.
  62. Rand 1964, p. 18
  63. See also Smith 2006
  64. Rand 1992, p. 731
  65. O'Neil, Patrick M. (Spring 1983). "Ayn Rand and the Is-Ought Problem" (PDF). Journal of Libertarian Studies. 7 (1): 81–99.
  66. Den Uyl, Douglas; Rasmussen, Douglas (April 1978). "Nozick On the Randian Argument". The Personalist. 59: 184–205. Reprinted along with Nozick's article in Reading Nozick, J. Paul, ed., 1981, Rowman & Littlefield.
  67. King, J. Charles. "Life and the Theory of Value: The Randian Argument Reconsidered" in Den Uyl & Rasmussen 1984.
  68. St. F. Blair, Paul (Spring 1985). "The Randian Argument Reconsidered: A Reply to Charles King" (PDF). Reason Papers (10). Retrieved September 14, 2011.
  69. Peikoff 1991, p. 354; Sciabarra 1995, p. 274
  70. Bernstein 2009, pp. 25–31
  71. Rand 1967, p. 141
  72. Peikoff 1991, pp. 310–313
  73. Rand 1982, p. 66
  74. Rand 1964, p. 36; Peikoff 1991, p. 310; Smith 1997, pp. 143–147
  75. Smith 1997, pp. 150–155
  76. Peikoff 1991, pp. 319
  77. Rand 1964, pp. 129–130
  78. Rand 1964, p. 126; Peikoff 1991, p. 320
  79. Peikoff 1991, pp. 351–352. The Objectivist understanding of rights is explored at length in Smith 1997.
  80. Rand 1964, p. 110
  81. Peikoff 1991, p. 355
  82. Smith 1997, pp. 165–182; Touchstone 2006, p. 108
  83. Peikoff 1991, pp. 356–358; Rand 1964, pp. 120
  84. Rand 1967, p. 19
  85. Rand 1964, p. 37
  86. Peikoff 1991, pp. 392–395; Sciabarra 1995, p. 284
  87. Rand 1964, p. 103
  88. Peikoff 1991, p. 364
  89. Rand 1964, pp. 125–128
  90. Rand 1964, p. 112
  91. Rand 1964, p. 131
  92. Rand 1964, p. 129
  93. Rand 1964, p. 128; Peikoff 1991, pp. 364–365
  94. Rand 1964, pp. 173–84; cf. Wortham, Anne (1981). The Other Side of Racism. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. ISBN 978-0-8142-0318-7.
  95. Rand, Ayn (1989). "Of Living Death". In Leonard Peikoff (ed.). The Voice of Reason. New York: New American Library. ISBN 978-0-453-00634-7.
  96. Rand 2005, pp. 45–46
  97. Rand 1967, pp. 226–28
  98. Rand 1982, pp. 173–84
  99. "Free Speech". Ayn Rand Lexicon.
  100. Greenspan, Alan. "Antitrust" in Rand 1967, pp. 63–71
  101. Branden, Nathaniel. "Common Fallacies about Capitalism" in Rand 1967, pp. 89–92
  102. Hessen, Robert. "The Effects of the Industrial Revolution on Women and Children" in Rand 1967, pp. 110–113
  103. Epstein, Alex (February 4, 2003). "Faith-Based Initiatives Are an Assault on Secular Government". Ayn Rand Institute. Archived from the original on March 24, 2012. Retrieved June 19, 2009.
  104. Binswanger, Harry (March 3, 2005). "The Ten Commandments vs. America". Ayn Rand Institute. Archived from the original on March 24, 2012. Retrieved June 19, 2009.
  105. Lockitch, Keith (December 11, 2005). "'Intelligent Design' Is about Religion versus Reason". Orange County Register. Archived from the original on March 24, 2012. Retrieved June 19, 2009.
  106. Peikoff 1991, p. 368
  107. Rand 1964, pp. 135–137
  108. Childs, Roy (1969). "Objectivism and The State: An Open Letter to Ayn Rand"
  109. Barry 1987, pp. 128–129
  110. ^ Kukathas 1998
  111. Burns 2009, pp. 250–251
  112. Rothbard, Murray N. (1974). "Anatomy of the State: What the State Is Not". Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays.
  113. Peikoff 1991, p. 417
  114. Peikoff 1991, p. 422
  115. Peikoff 1991, p. 426
  116. Barr 2012
  117. "What is Romanticism?" in Rand 1971
  118. Torres & Kamhi 2000, pp. 31–32; Holzer 2005, pp. 115–125
  119. Rand, Ayn. "Introduction". In Peikoff 1982, p. vii
  120. Peikoff 1991, p. iv
  121. Schwartz 1989
  122. Kelley, David (October 17, 2008). "A Note to Our Members About Open Objectivism". Atlas Society.
  123. Khawaja, Irfan (December 2000). "Comments on Tara Smith's Viable Values". Retrieved May 29, 2009.; Hsieh, Diana (Spring 2007). "Egoism Explained: A Review of Tara Smith's Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist". The Objective Standard. 2 (1). Archived from the original on March 28, 2014. Retrieved May 29, 2009.
  124. Harriman, David, The Logical Leap, 2010, New American Library.
  125. Locke, Edwin and Kenner, Ellen, Platform, 2011
  126. Heller, Anne C. (2009). Ayn Rand and the World She Made. New York: Doubleday. p. xii. ISBN 978-0-385-51399-9.
  127. Branden, Nathaniel (Fall 1984). "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand: A Personal Statement". Journal of Humanistic Psychology. 24 (4): 29–64. doi:10.1177/0022167884244004. S2CID 144772216. Archived from the original on July 17, 2011.
  128. ^ Ghate, Onkar (February 2, 2008). "The Appeal of Ayn Rand". Capitalism Magazine. Archived from the original on April 22, 2014. Retrieved April 22, 2014.
  129. Gladstein 1999, p. 111
  130. ^ Doherty, Brian (2007). Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement. New York: Public Affairs. p. 544. ISBN 978-1-58648-350-0.
  131. Burns 2009, p. 4
  132. Harvey, Benjamin (May 15, 2005). "Ayn Rand at 100: An 'ism' struts its stuff". Rutland Herald. Archived from the original on December 26, 2007. Retrieved July 20, 2007.
  133. Honderich 2005, pp. x, 740
  134. Salmieri & Gotthelf 2005
  135. Hicks 2005
  136. Stevens 1998
  137. Mautner, Thomas. The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy. Penguin Books, 2000, p. 469.
  138. Sciabarra 1995, p. 386n.7
  139. Den Uyl, Douglas J. (1998). "On Rand as Philosopher" (PDF). Reason Papers. 23: 70–71. Retrieved August 8, 2011.
  140. Sharlet, Jeff (April 9, 1999). "Ayn Rand has finally caught the attention of scholars: New books and research projects involve philosophy, political theory, literary criticism, and feminism". The Chronicle of Higher Education. 45 (31): 17–18.
  141. Gladstein 2009, pp. 116–117; Burns 2009, p. 297

Works cited

Further reading

External links

Ayn Rand
Bibliography
Novels
Nonfiction books
Collected essays
Screenplays
Stage plays
Other writings
Characters
Adaptations
Screen
Stage
Philosophy
Influence
Depictions
Libertarianism
Origins
Schools
Libertarian capitalism
(Right-libertarianism)
Libertarian socialism
(Left-libertarianism)
Concepts
Philosophers
Left-wing
Right-wing
Other
Politicians
Issues
Works
Related
Philosophy
Branches
Branches
Aesthetics
Epistemology
Ethics
Free will
Metaphysics
Mind
Normativity
Ontology
Reality
By era
By era
Ancient
Chinese
Greco-Roman
Indian
Persian
Medieval
East Asian
European
Indian
Islamic
Jewish
Modern
People
Contemporary
Analytic
Continental
Miscellaneous
  • By region
By region
African
Eastern
Middle Eastern
Western
Miscellaneous
Categories: