Recently I tried to understand the philosophy of the late Ayn Rand, who is famous for her novel “Atlas Shrugged”, which embeds a lot of her philosophy. I once watched the 3 part movie series “Atlas Shrugged”, which also embed a lot of her philosophy, especially the political and economic aspects. I have also read her book “Anthem” and attended a lecture by Tal Tsfany, the President and CEO of the Ayn Rand Institute, on the topic of “The Moral Case for Liberty”. [1]
Alice O’Connor (born Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum; 1905 – 1982), better known by her pen name Ayn Rand (/aɪn/), was a Russian-born American writer and philosopher. She is known for her fiction and for developing a philosophical system she named Objectivism. Born and educated in Russia, she moved to the United States in 1926.[2]
Her family was Jewish and they lived under Joseph Stalin during the early years until her family fled Russia eventually arriving in the USA.
Ayn Rand’s philosophy as reported by Wikipedia[3]
Rand called her philosophy “Objectivism“, describing its essence 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”. She considered Objectivism a systematic philosophy and laid out positions on metaphysics, aesthetics, epistemology, ethics, and political philosophy.
In metaphysics, Rand supported philosophical realism and opposed anything she regarded as mysticism or supernaturalism, including all forms of religion. Rand believed in free will as a form of agent causation and rejected determinism.
In epistemology, Rand considered all knowledge to be based on sense perception, the validity of which she considered axiomatic, and reason, which she described as “the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses”. Rand rejected all claims of non-perceptual knowledge, including “‘instinct,’ ‘intuition,’ ‘revelation,’ or any form of ‘just knowing’”.
My current assessment is as follows.
After the lecture by Tal Tsfany I asked what is the most fundamental underlying axiom or presupposition to the philosophy of Objectivism. The answer I finally got was “existence exists”.
I contended then and still do that it has no concrete foundation in the natural world. And that became quite apparent. Rand’s philosophy is without foundation to the real world, but that is celebrated. She was an atheist. As such there is no Creator, no gods, and no religion that gives a true account of history. The worldview (philosophy) is held up by its own bootstraps.
Epistemologically, its perception is all in the mind, where the senses are not informed by the real world.
In metaphysics, Epistemology is the study of how do we know what we know. Ontology is the philosophical study of being, as well as related concepts such as existence, becoming, and reality. You might say an ontologist believes in an external physical reality, that is external to his own mind. Rand’s Objectivism does not. The only “reality” there, is the one the mind conceives. Therefore nothing is real for all observers. Even liberty is a construct of one’s own mind.
Rand’s philosophy is humanist and atheistic in nature. It derived from reason alone. This sets up the human mind as the god of creation. And no one’s truth is the truth.
I think it is well illustrated by the plot of the movie the Matrix. The Matrix is a world where people are tied into a giant computer and their existence is in the metaverse, a fake reality generated by the machine and their minds. There is this pivotal point where some are given a choice between a red pill and a blue pill. Those who take the blue pill continue to be happy (and happiness is the end goal of Rand’s philosophy) living in the metaverse, but those who take the red pill are shocked into waking up and seeing the real universe. The point is that universe exists outside their minds. Rand would not agree with that.
Her Objectivism philosophy is a rejection of the Collectivism of Marxist communism which she experienced in her younger years. I agree that the collectivist mindset is evil but she would not say inherently so. There are no absolutes because there is no absolute Ruler. We need individualism, but not at the expense of the family unit. And we definitely do not need the Individualism as defined by Ayn Rand. Because there are no gods, especially no Creator, unguided evolution must be embraced. But in the mind world of the metaverse anything is possible. Miracles then are the creation of the human mind.
Instead of the mind of the Creator, the self-existent One, Yahweh, who has always existed, the objectivists posits that their own mind creates. Thus the rejection of one “religion” leads to the embracing of another. It solves nothing. And the regression to a first cause agent ends in the observer’s mind.
Evil or good only exists in the mind. There are no objective standards only what you mind allows.
Tal Tsfany told me to imagine a universe without any living organisms at all. Does that world exist? Not according to Objectionism, but if the Creator exists and always has done, from eternity in the past to eternity in the future, then the universe does exist as the physical creation from His intelligent mind. Tsfany said the laws of physics wouldn’t exist as there would be no observer to create them. I say the Creator always exists and the laws of physics are the product of His creation. Even a lowly crystal will react to a photon of light in a world before the Creator made sentient beings.
Communism replaces the Creator God with a collectivist god, whereas Rand’s Objectivism replaces that with the Individualist as god. It is antichrist at its heart and should be rejected as another failed philosophy of man.
“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. 10 And you are complete in Him, which is the head of all principality and power:” (emphasis added)
Colossians 2:8-10
Thus, Rand’s solution to happiness is a new definition of “selfishness”. First take care of yourself, and after that help others. There is no trust is the Lord God Creator of all things. That is just mysticism.
But this is the opposite of the biblical commandments which teach us that happiness is not found in yourself, but first in Jesus Christ, then helping others and lastly yourself. The bold letters spell the acronym J – O – Y. Joy is the result of putting yourself last. But in Rand’s philosophy it is Y – O – , where the J for Jesus is scrubbed out.
Don’t be deceived by the noble ideas that we would agree with, especially those that work against the evils of collectivism/communism etc. Humanism has always ended in destruction of man. It started in the Garden of Eden when Satan tempted Eve with “Has God said?” and it hasn’t stopped since.
[1] Tal Tsfany, The Moral Case for Liberty, The Western Australian Legal Theory Association (WALTA), in partnership with The Civilisationists at https://walta.net.au/2023/07/11/the-moral-case-for-liberty-a-walta-seminar-with-tal-tsfany-ayn-rand-institute/
[2] Ayn Rand, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand
[3] Ibid.
Recommended Reading
Book: Apocalypse Now: On the Revelation of Jesus Christ
Follow me
- Telegram.org: @GideonHartnett
- Facebook: Gideon Hartnett
- X (Twitter): gideon195203
Subscribe
To be notified by email add your email address below.
Support my site
Click this image to make a secure Donation (Stripe) !
Bible Science Forum 
4 responses to “Ayn Rand’s Philosophy: My Perspective”
Dr. Hartnett,
Thank you for your summary of Ayn Rand’s thinking.
Atlas Shrugged was one of the most interesting books I read last year, and although I agree with your conclusion that her “objectivism” starts from the wrong premise (atheism), one might note that very few atheists are as consistent in their thinking as she was! A consistent philosophical Darwinist has no basis to show mercy or charity unless it enhances their survivability and preeminence. Nor did Rand, who considered selfishness the highest virtue.
Ironically, one can’t help but be impressed that she esteemed certain virtues that we hold dear, for different reasons of course:
-Stop feeling sorry for yourself.
-You are responsible for your actions–don’t blame others.
-Aspire to work very hard–there will be a commiserate reward (I Cor 15:10; Col 3:23).
There is much we can learn from those who don’t hold a biblical worldview–both in science and philosophy–as long as we use the filter of the Scriptures to sift and evaluate, giving it majesterial authority over any competing idea.
Thank you.
Stephen Mack
USA
LikeLike
Stephen,
I agree. We can learn from what they say but use the Word of God as a filter.
Having said that we need to be on alert as this sort of philosophy can be a Trojan horse.
LikeLike
If there is no God and the only thing that matters is the objective of your life then what happens if you are a psychopath and the objective of your life is to depopulate the planet? Her philosophy only works if one assumes the person with the objective is inherently good such as having an objective to cure disease or create beautiful buildings for people to enjoy. Otherwise her philosophy simply provides a justification for Machiavellian behavior.
LikeLike
Ayn Rand despised altruism as personal weakness. This is the epitome of self-righteousness, basing one’s principles on something other than the Word of God.
LikeLike