I was browsing a used bookstore the other day and came across a book titled Philosophy 100 Essential Thinkers. I scanned the table of contents and saw that Ayn Rand was not listed among them. I found this odd since she has had, and is having, a great deal of influence on many of the leaders in today’s America.

I’m not an Objectivist, but neither am I a Marxist. And yet Marx was listed while Rand was ignored. Some will claim it’s because Rand was a terrible person and was hypocritical in not fully following her own ideas. However, these same accusations can be laid on Marx, and his hypocrisy, as well as his vile life, was ten times worse than Rand’s.

No, I think the reason for the omission is due the fact that Rand was the anti-Marx. Having survived the worst of Lennin’s Soviet Union, she became a staunch anti-Communist and saw Capitalism as not only more efficient but ethically superior. This makes her adored by the Right and therefore, despised by the Left. And academia, of which philosophy is a part, is dominated by the Left. The Left first tried to tear down her ideas, then attempted to belittle them, and finally to ignore them. However, her ideas should be studied not only to know which of those thoughts have merit and should be incorporated into our own personal philosophy, but also to understand the thinking of those who are Objectivist.

As I mentioned earlier, I am not an Objectivist for many of the same reasons I’m not a Marxist. Both are atheistic and as such see only the material world as reality. As a Christian I believe there is a reality that transcends this world. Also, having a mathematical and engineering background, I like many with such training, I fall more into the Neo-Platonist camp. My mathematical background causes me to view mathematics as something discovered and not invented. My Christianity has me assert that there is a spiritual realm that transcends the physical world. Both these thoughts are anathema to the purely materialist views of Marxist and Objectivist. Both see metaphysics as nonsense.

Objectivist epistemology is very good, and I think it’s how Objectivism got its name. I feel one of the best explanations was given by Mark Felton in his TIKHistory podcast episode How Do You Know You’re Right? The Objective Theory of History. In it he explained how you take multiple sources, which can be viewed as subjective, resolve the conflicts that arise between them, and thereby weave an objective narrative that explains the who, what, how, when, and why in a historical episode. This is an excellent method of finding factual truth in the physical world, but it is limited to only the physical world. Which is why, as a Christian, I see its limitations. The only way to gain spiritual truth is through revelation, and we have to test those who claim such revelation. Objectivism can be a tool in testing proclaimed prophets, and without knowing it apologists have used elements of it. This epistemological view is one of the reasons the left dislikes Objectivism. Postmodernism, in which the left is deeply rooted, rejects the idea of objective truth. To them truth is purely subjective, as in I have my truth, and you have your truth. Something that claims there is such a thing as truth, and humans have the capacity to recognize and obtain even a portion of it, flies in the face of some of their most cherished beliefs. But this is only a minor reason for their disdain of Objectivism.

The real hatred of Objectivism comes from its view on ethics. Ayn Rand is known as the apostle of selfishness. That nomor is somewhat, but not entirely unjustified. As Jennifer Burns in Lex Fridman’s podcast, Historian: Explains Ayn Rand’s Philosophy, Ayn Rand liked to use inflammatory language to provoke a reaction in hopes of getting people to think in new ways. Unfortunately, she just provoked them to oppose her without thinking. She used the word selfishness in just this way, and Jennifer Burns said that a better term would be “self-actualization.” I think it would be even better to call it the ancient Greek concept of Arete. In all these cases it is the principle of working towards the perfection of outcome whether that be in developing your own abilities in chosen field, such as architecture, or in working towards a goal as in building a business. Her ideas of selfishness were in the concepts of self-improvement and self-actualization. It was never the idea of screwing people over to get ahead. Her book The Fountainhead shows her disgust for such people. For her, selfishness meant working to raise yourself to a higher level without the concerns towards others holding you back. Which is Arete, or as Vince Lombardi told the Green Bay Packers, “Gentlemen we are pursuing perfection, even though we have no hope of catching it.”

This all sounds good and fine, but as a Christian I do have a problem with it. The Apostle Paul explains this best in Chapter 13 of I Corinthians. At the start of the chapter, he tells how one could achieve perfect knowledge and wisdom, even to the point of understanding all mysteries and mastering the languages of men and angels. Such a person could also show great sacrificing by giving all his wealth and even his life, but it would all be meaningless because it is all pointing to the self. To truly reach perfection as in the perfection of God, one must have agape or the love that comes from charity. The problem with Arete, and Objectivism, is man placing himself as his god. Although Objectivism is the anti-Marxism it still fails in the same way as Marxism. Both place man as god, and that has been the tragedy of all human history. This is not surprising since both are atheistic and materialistic.

#AynRand, #Objectivism