The writing of Ayn Rand is given little to no regard in most academic circles, yet it remains one of the most persuasive and popular endorsements of ethical egoism in the world today. Consider, for example, that both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead are respectively placed first and second on the Modern Library Reader's List 100 Best Novels, while at the same time none of her works appear on the parallel Board's List which is seen to reflect the opinions of "expert" or "learned" judges. This reflects current attitudes towards Ayn Rand accurately: while academics are content to for the most part ignore Rand's unique brand of anti-altruism, the public has maintained a steady interest and commitment to her theory and writings, even though many of her essays and novels were published more than fifty years ago. Regardless of whether or not such dismissals are justified, it is a curious gap which marks the difference between academic and popular discourse which is not likely to change any time soon.
[...] 4th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group - 118 Hayek, F. A. “Liberty, Equality, and Merit”. The Constitution of Liberty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 100. Kalin, Jesse. Defence of Egoism”. Ethical Theory. Ed. Louis J. Pojman. 4th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group 108. Kant, Immanuel. “Foundation for the Metaphysics of Morals”. [...]
[...] This is because Rorty's concept of contingency and Sartre's concept of existential humanism attack the fundamental assumption which support Rand's theory, while utilitarianism and deontological theories only attack the conclusions which are made based on those premises. Because of the effectiveness which Rorty and Sartre boast against Rand's theory, we have less reason to believe that Rand's conception of mankind and her conception of reason are correct, and even less that her political theory is correct. Furthermore, other theories of ethical egoism which base themselves off similar assumptions (that man's nature is to be always rational, and that reason is an infallible source for correct judgments) are also suspect. [...]
[...] The reason I mention these two other philosophers is to show that Rand's concluding position of lassiez faire capitalism is not an uncommon one advocated by respected academic philosophers, but also because we can see that all three base their arguments primarily on the ethical virtue of liberty and freedom. I simply note this here so that we might return to it at a later date to subject it to critical scrutiny, for as we shall see with some of the objections we will consider, liberty and freedom can both be terms which cut two ways: on behalf of the minimal government and against it. [...]
[...] This is what Rorty's contingency and Sartre's humanism do, the former by deconstructing Rand's concept of reason and the latter by deconstructing her concept of Aristotelian function. III. Contingency and Humanism Much of Rorty's concept of individual contingency comes from his reading of Freud. He writes “Freud thus helps us take seriously the possibility that there is no central faculty, no central self, called and thus to take the Nietzschean pragmatism and perspectivalism seriously” (33). This means that reason, which Rand relies on wholeheartedly to bear the weight of informing human judgment, becomes suspect when we take into account the fact that all our actions and motivations are informed by the idiosyncratic contingencies which make up our life, both behaviorally and genetically. [...]
[...] Rand writes that The virtue of Rationality means 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. It means total commitment to a state of full, conscious awareness, to the maintenance of a full mental focus in all issues, in all choices, in all of one's waking hours. (The Virtue of Selfishness 25) Furthermore, it is from this standard of rationality that Rand's ethics are derived: “Since reason is man's basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of the rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil” (The Virtue of Selfishness 23). [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
