Ayn Rand's Philosophical Style: A Brief Introduction
by Neil Parille

Introduction

     Ayn Rand (1905-1982) was both a novelist and a philosopher. Although Rand wrote on technical areas of philosophy, her works of philosophy are best known (and respected by) those who are not professional philosophers. Part of his has to do with Rand’s ideas (in particular her defense of laissez-faire and rational selfishness) and part with her writing style. This essay will discuss some aspects of Rand’s philosophical style.

Rand’s Philosophical Essays

     For the most part, Rand’s books on philosophy consist of essays that she wrote and published in The Objectivist and The Ayn Rand Letter. She occasionally mentioned that she was working on a book to present her philosophy, but such a work never appeared.
Rand’s essays are quite different from most philosophical essays. A typical (non-Randian) philosophical essay includes: (1) a discussion of one’s own position; (2) a discussion of opposing positions; (3) potential arguments contrary to one’s position; and (4) responses to these. Rand for the most part stops at two.

     Perhaps the most frustrating part of Rand’s essays is her failure to anticipate certain counterarguments and “follow up” questions. For example, she famously stated “existence exists” and used this axiom to refute skepticism. Yet, from the fact that existence exists (and that skepticism is self-refuting) it does not follow that: (1) the senses are reliable all or most of the time; and (2) there no sources of knowledge other than the senses. Another example is her seminal article “The Objectivist Ethics.” As Eric Mack notes, there are numerous assertions that cry out for more careful argumentation and anticipation of potential counterarguments. (Mack, Problematic Arguments in Randian Ethics, Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, Vol. 5, No 1.)

     Rand also doesn’t discuss many of the secondary questions that naturally arise in philosophy. Missing from her political philosophy is (to the best of my knowledge) a discussion of issues such as the rights of children, the “rights” of animals, whether one can agree to be enslaved, whether there should be compulsory discovery in civil litigation, etc. These types of questions preoccupy libertarians, but not Rand. As another example, Rand defined man as a “rational animal” but did not discuss the obvious question of whether the insane, the retarded or the senile should be considered human.

     In addition, while Rand interacts with other schools of thought, she interacts minimally with representative thinkers. As an example, in her essay “The Objectivist Ethics” she mentions Nietzsche, Mill, Bentham and Comte, but only as examples of certain approaches to ethics. Their work is never quoted or cited. On the other hand, she quotes from John Galt’s speech (from Atlas Shrugged) several times. Unsympathetic critics have likened her frequent quotations of Atlas Shrugged to a minister quoting the Bible.

     At the same time, it is important to realize that Rand does not claim to be an historian of philosophy. She is not interested in why exactly Mill advocated utilitarianism or how his version of utilitarianism is different from Bentham’s. She is interested in someone’s general approach and how it fits in the philosophical spectrum, generally in terms of specific positions contrary to hers. Thus, ethical theories may be divided into three types: intrinsicism, subjectivism and objectivism.

     Simply put, Rand was a “big picture” thinker. While she wrote on many of the central issues of philosopher, much of her work can be considered introductory in nature. Perhaps her most detailed work is in the area of concept formation; even there she entitled her work Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

Definitions

     One of the most striking aspects of Rand’s essays is her use of definitions. At times, she has unusual definitions of words. She is best known for her advocacy of “selfishness.” Yet she defined selfishness as follows: “concern with one’s own interests.” She even states that this is the “exact meaning and dictionary definition.” (Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness (“VOS”), p. vii.) She further states that “[a]ltruism declares that any action take for the benefit of others is good and any action take for one’s own benefit is evil.” (Id., p. viii.)

     A common criticism of Rand is that she has created her own definitions. I’m unaware of a dictionary that lists “concern with own interest” as the “exact meaning” of selfishness. In any event, Rand was obviously correct that much mischief is caused by poor definitions and that precision in words was necessary to advance her unique philosophy. To take one example, most people limit “capitalism” to a theory advocating an economy free from government control. Some extend the definition more broadly to a theory of property rights. According to Rand: “Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, in which all property is privately owned.” (Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (“CUI”), p. 19.)

     Rand opened herself to much criticism by her use of definitions. At the same time, she encouraged her readers to see the futility of the middle of the road approach. Many people consider it a virtue to be moderate and assert that “the truth is somewhere in the middle.” Rand wanted to shock people out of their complacency in order to understand the radicalism of Objectivism.

Totalism

     One of the most interesting aspects of Rand’s philosophical essays is what has been called her “totalism.” To Rand, all ideas are interrelated and one mistake leads to many more. The phrase “ideas have consequences” (popularized in the book of the same name by Richard Weaver) has never been more taken to heart by a philosopher than Rand. Although this makes Rand’s philosophy exciting, she at times gets carried away and fails to distinguish her views on a subject from those who advocate it. As one example, consider her discussion of “mysticism” from “The Objectivist Ethics” (I’ve added the numbers):

The mystic theory of ethics is [1] explicitly based on the premise that the standard of value of man’s ethics is set beyond the grave, by the laws or requirements of another, supernatural dimension, [2] that ethics is impossible for man to practice, [3] that it is unsuited for and opposed to man’s life on earth, and [4] that man must take the blame for it and suffer through the whole of his earthly existence, [5] to atone for the guilt of being unable to practice the impracticable. (VOS, p. 38)

     Most “mystics” would probably agree with [1] (although they might not phrase it precisely that way). On the other hand, [2]-[5] constitute Rand’s opinion of what a mystic would believe if he acted consistently on his premises. As a matter of fact, most mystics would probably deny that they believe that ethics is “opposed to man’s life on earth.” In certain forms of Christianity, it is taught that those who obey God’s moral laws will benefit materially.

     Rand does not limit her totalism to the field of personal ethics. Erroneous ideas don’t just lead to more false ideas or personal unhappiness; they result in societal and civilizational breakdown.    Consider her discussion of concept formation. She taught that the fate of human society and every human being rested on the ability to develop the correct theory of concept formation. (Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, p. 3.)

     Interestingly, Rand’s essays contain a fair bit of apocalypticism. In addition to the fact that there is an inherent conflict between reason and mysticism, and freedom and slavery, these conflicts are being played out in a particularly vivid way in contemporary society. “The world is facing a deadly conflict and that we must fight to save civilization.” (CUI, p. 192.) In her essay “For the New Intellectual” she stated that “civilization is facing a crisis.” (Rand, For the New Intellectual, p. 11.) Or, “[T]he world is now collapsing to a lower and ever lower rung of hell . . . .” (VOS, p. 15.)

Conclusion

     Ayn Rand is a forceful and engaging writer who compels her readers to see the consequences of holding certain ideas. In spite of certain weaknesses in her style, she has encouraged millions to take up the study of philosophy.

Discuss this Article (27 messages)