Here’s to the Trillionaire
Here’s to the trillionaire
Who made it with his mind.
Here’s to the trillionaire
Who never stole a dime.
Here’s to the trillionaire
Whose rockets breach the sky.
Here’s to the trillionaire
Who bids old limits die.
Here’s to the trillionaire
Whose joy in building shows.
Here’s to the trillionaire
Whose genius overflows.
Here’s to the trillionaire
Who levels up our world.
Here’s to the trillionaire
Who shrugs off insults hurled.
Here’s to the trillionaire
Who fails and learns and grows.
Here’s to the trillionaire
Who always forward goes.
Down with the envious
Who sneer at human good.
Stand with the rational
Who cheer—as humans should.
Cheers to this trillionaire.
We honor earned success.
And, to the next who rise:
We wish you all the best.
Going live today at 7pm ET / 4 PT on YouTube, X, and Facebook.
I’ll start with a discussion of the virtue of black-and-white thinking, then take questions about morality, objectivity, and principled thinking in general. I hope to see you there!
youtube.com/watch?v=9t3autxP…
2
276
My new show goes live in an hour.
“What kind of show would I want to tune in to every week?”
That’s the question I asked myself.
And the answer came from my soul with clarity:
I want a show focused on the connection between how we know (epistemology), how we should act if we want to flourish (morality)—and the method of thinking that makes knowledge and flourishing possible.
Then I realized: This isn’t just the show I’d enjoy watching now. It’s the show I desperately needed when I was in my teens and twenties.
That sealed it.
So today I’m launching a new live show where I’ll be taking your questions on:
• Objectivity and how knowledge works
• The science of morality and human flourishing
• How principles are grounded in reality
• How to apply principles to real-life situations
Bring your hardest, most interesting questions about clear thinking and good living—and we’ll work through them together.
Join me for the premiere episode today, January 15, at 7pm Eastern / 4pm Pacific. The show will stream on YouTube, X, and Facebook.
I hope to see you there!
Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice
The fundamental political conflict in America today is, as it has been for a century, individualism vs. collectivism. Does the individual’s life belong to him—or does it belong to the group, the community, society, or the state? With government expanding ever more rapidly—seizing and spending more and more of our money on “entitlement” programs and corporate bailouts, and intruding on our businesses and lives in increasingly onerous ways—the need for clarity on this issue has never been greater. Let us begin by defining the terms at hand.
Individualism is the idea that the individual’s life belongs to him and that he has an inalienable right to live it as he sees fit, to act on his own judgment, to keep and use the product of his effort, and to pursue the values of his choosing. It’s the idea that the individual is sovereign, an end in himself, and the fundamental unit of moral concern. This is the ideal that the American Founders set forth and sought to establish when they drafted the Declaration and the Constitution and created a country in which the individual’s rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness were to be recognized and protected.
Collectivism is the idea that the individual’s life belongs not to him but to the group or society of which he is merely a part, that he has no rights, and that he must sacrifice his values and goals for the group’s “greater good.” According to collectivism, the group or society is the basic unit of moral concern, and the individual is of value only insofar as he serves the group. As one advocate of this idea puts it: “Man has no rights except those which society permits him to enjoy. From the day of his birth until the day of his death society allows him to enjoy certain so-called rights and deprives him of others; not . . . because society desires especially to favor or oppress the individual, but because its own preservation, welfare, and happiness are the prime considerations.”
Individualism or collectivism—which of these ideas is correct? Which has the facts on its side?
Individualism does, and we can see this at every level of philosophic inquiry: from metaphysics, the branch of philosophy concerned with the fundamental nature of reality; to epistemology, the branch concerned with the nature and means of knowledge; to ethics, the branch concerned with the nature of value and proper human action; to politics, the branch concerned with a proper social system.
We’ll take them in turn.
Metaphysics, Individualism, and Collectivism
When we look out at the world and see people, we see separate, distinct individuals. The individuals may be in groups (say, on a soccer team or in a business venture), but the indivisible beings we see are individual people. Each has his own body, his own mind, his own life. Groups, insofar as they exist, are nothing more than individuals who have come together to interact for some purpose. This is an observable fact about the way the world is. It is not a matter of personal opinion or social convention, and it is not rationally debatable. It is a perceptual-level, metaphysically given fact. Things are what they are; human beings are individuals.
A beautiful statement of the metaphysical fact of individualism was provided by former slave Frederick Douglass in a letter he wrote to his ex-“master” Thomas Auld after escaping bondage in Maryland and fleeing to New York. “I have often thought I should like to explain to you the grounds upon which I have justified myself in running away from you,” wrote Douglass. “I am almost ashamed to do so now, for by this time you may have discovered them yourself. I will, however, glance at them.” You see, said Douglass,
“I am myself; you are yourself; we are two distinct persons, equal persons. What you are, I am. You are a man, and so am I. God created both, and made us separate beings. I am not by nature bound to you, or you to me. Nature does not make your existence depend upon me, or mine to depend upon yours. I cannot walk upon your legs, or you upon mine. I cannot breathe for you, or you for me; I must breathe for myself, and you for yourself. We are distinct persons, and are each equally provided with faculties necessary to our individual existence. In leaving you, I took nothing but what belonged to me, and in no way lessened your means for obtaining an honest living. Your faculties remained yours, and mine became useful to their rightful owner.”
Although one could quibble with the notion that “God” creates people, Douglass’s basic metaphysical point is clearly sound. Human beings are by nature distinct, separate beings, each with his own body and his own faculties necessary to his own existence. Human beings are not in any way metaphysically attached or dependent on one another; each must use his own mind and direct his own body; no one else can do either for him. People are individuals. “I am myself; you are yourself; we are two distinct persons.”
The individual is metaphysically real; he exists in and of himself; he is the basic unit of human life. Groups or collectives of people—whether families, partnerships, communities, or societies—are not metaphysically real; they do not exist in and of themselves; they are not fundamental units of human life. Rather, they are some number of individuals. This is perceptually self-evident. We can see that it is true.
Who says otherwise? Collectivists do. John Dewey, a father of pragmatism and modern “liberalism,” explains the collectivist notion as follows:
“Society in its unified and structural character is the fact of the case; the non-social individual is an abstraction arrived at by imagining what man would be if all his human qualities were taken away. Society, as a real whole, is the normal order, and the mass as an aggregate of isolated units is the fiction.”
According to collectivism, the group or society is metaphysically real—and the individual is a mere abstraction, a fiction.
This, of course, is ridiculous, but there you have it. On the metaphysics of collectivism, you and I (and Mr. Douglass) are fictional, and we become real only insofar as we somehow interrelate with society. As to exactly how we must interrelate with the collective in order to become part of the “real whole,” we’ll hear about that shortly.
Let us turn now to the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of knowledge.
Epistemology, Individualism, and Collectivism
What is knowledge? Where does it come from? How do we know what’s true? Knowledge is a mental grasp of a fact (or facts) of reality reached by perceptual observation or a process of reason based thereon. Who looks at reality, hears reality, touches reality, reasons about reality—and thereby gains knowledge of reality? The individual does. The individual possesses eyes, ears, hands, and the like. The individual possesses a mind and the capacity to use it. He perceives reality (e.g., dogs, cats, and birds, and death); he integrates his perceptions into concepts (e.g., “dog,” “animal,” and “mortal”); he integrates his concepts into generalizations (e.g., “dogs can bite” and “animals are mortal”); he forms principles (e.g., “animals, including man, must take certain actions in order to remain alive,” and “man requires freedom in order to live and prosper”). And so on. Knowledge is a product of the perceptual observations and mental integrations of individuals.
Of course, individuals can learn from other people, they can teach others what they have learned—and they can do so in groups. But in any such transmission of knowledge, the individual’s senses must do the perceiving, and his mind must do the integrating. Groups don’t have sensory apparatuses or minds; only individuals do. This, too, is simply unassailable.
But that doesn’t stop collectivists from denying it.
The relevant epistemological principle, writes Helen Longino (chair of the philosophy department at Stanford University) is that “knowledge is produced by cognitive processes that are fundamentally social.” Granted, she says, “without individuals there would be no knowledge” because “it is through their sensory system that the natural world enters cognition. . . . The activities of knowledge construction, however, are the activities of individuals in interaction”; thus knowledge “is constructed not by individuals, but by an interactive dialogic community.”
You can’t make this stuff up. But an “interactive dialogic community” can.
Although it is true (and should be unremarkable) that individuals in a society can exchange ideas and learn from one another, the fact remains that the individual, not the community, has a mind; the individual, not the group, does the thinking; the individual, not society, produces knowledge; and the individual, not society, shares that knowledge with others who, in turn, must use their individual minds if they are to grasp it. Any individual who chooses to observe the facts of reality can see that this is so. The fact that certain “philosophers” (or “dialogic communities”) deny it has no bearing on the truth of the matter.
Correct epistemology—the truth about the nature and source of knowledge—is on the side of individualism, not collectivism.
Next up are the respective views of morality that follow from these foundations.
Ethics, Individualism, and Collectivism
What is the nature of good and bad, right and wrong? How, in principle, should people act? Such are the questions of ethics or morality (I use these terms interchangeably). Why do these questions arise? Why do we need to answer them? Such questions arise and need to be answered only because individuals exist and need principled guidance about how to live and prosper.
We are not born knowing how to survive and achieve happiness, nor do we gain such knowledge automatically, nor, if we do gain it, do we act on such knowledge automatically. (As evidence, observe the countless miserable people in the world.) If we want to live and prosper, we need principled guidance toward that end. Ethics is the branch of philosophy dedicated to providing such guidance.
For instance, a proper morality says to the individual: Go by reason (as against faith or feelings)—look at reality, identify the nature of things, make causal connections, use logic—because reason is your only means of knowledge, and thus your only means of choosing and achieving life-serving goals and values. Morality also says: Be honest—don’t pretend that facts are other than they are, don’t make up alternate realities in your mind and treat them as real—because reality is absolute and cannot be faked out of existence, and because you need to understand the real world in order to succeed in it. Morality further provides guidance for dealing specifically with people. For instance, it says: Be just—judge people rationally, according to the available and relevant facts, and treat them accordingly, as they deserve to be treated—because this policy is crucial to establishing and maintaining good relationships and to avoiding, ending, or managing bad ones. And morality says: Be independent—think and judge for yourself, don’t turn to others for what to believe or accept—because truth is not correspondence to the views of other people but correspondence to the facts of reality. And so on.
By means of such guidance (and the foregoing is just a brief indication), morality enables the individual to live and thrive. And that is precisely the purpose of moral guidance: to help the individual choose and achieve life-serving goals and values, such as an education, a career, recreational activities, friendships, and romance. The purpose of morality is, as the great individualist Ayn Rand put it, to teach you to enjoy yourself and live.
Just as the individual, not the group, is metaphysically real—and just as the individual, not the collective, has a mind and thinks—so too the individual, not the community or society, is the fundamental unit of moral concern. The individual is morally an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others. Each individual should pursue his life-serving values and respect the rights of others to do the same. This is the morality that flows from the metaphysics and epistemology of individualism.
What morality flows from the metaphysics and epistemology of collectivism? Just what you would expect: a morality in which the collective is the basic unit of moral concern.
On the collectivist view of morality, explains “progressive” intellectual A. Maurice Low, “that which more than anything marks the distinction between civilized and uncivilized society is that in the former the individual is nothing and society is everything; in the latter society is nothing and the individual is everything.” Mr. Low assisted with the definition of collectivism at the outset of this article; here he elaborates with emphasis on the alleged “civility” of collectivism:
“In a civilized society man has no rights except those which society permits him to enjoy. From the day of his birth until the day of his death society allows him to enjoy certain so-called rights and deprives him of others; not . . . because society desires especially to favor or oppress the individual, but because its own preservation, welfare, and happiness are the prime considerations. And so that society may not perish, so that it may reach a still higher plane, so that men and women may become better citizens, society permits them certain privileges and restricts them in the use of others. Sometimes in the exercise of this power the individual is put to a great deal of inconvenience, even, at times, he suffers what appears to be injustice. This is to be regretted, but it is inevitable. The aim of civilized society is to do the greatest good to the greatest number, and because the largest number may derive benefit from the largest good the individual must subordinate his own desires or inclinations for the benefit of all.”
Because Mr. Low wrote that in 1913—before Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, and company tortured and murdered hundreds of millions of people explicitly in the name of “the greatest good for the greatest number”—he may be granted some small degree of leniency. Today’s collectivists, however, have no such excuse.
As Ayn Rand wrote in 1946, and as every adult who chooses to think can now appreciate,
“‘The greatest good for the greatest number’ is one of the most vicious slogans ever foisted on humanity. This slogan has no concrete, specific meaning. There is no way to interpret it benevolently, but a great many ways in which it can be used to justify the most vicious actions.
“What is the definition of ‘the good’ in this slogan? None, except: whatever is good for the greatest number. Who, in any particular issue, decides what is good for the greatest number? Why, the greatest number.
“If you consider this moral, you would have to approve of the following examples, which are exact applications of this slogan in practice: fifty-one percent of humanity enslaving the other forty-nine; nine hungry cannibals eating the tenth one; a lynching mob murdering a man whom they consider dangerous to the community.
“There were seventy million Germans in Germany and six hundred thousand Jews. The greatest number (the Germans) supported the Nazi government which told them that their greatest good would be served by exterminating the smaller number (the Jews) and grabbing their property. This was the horror achieved in practice by a vicious slogan accepted in theory.
“But, you might say, the majority in all these examples did not achieve any real good for itself either? No. It didn’t. Because ‘the good’ is not determined by counting numbers and is not achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone.”
The collectivist notion of morality is patently evil and demonstrably false. The good of the community logically cannot take priority over that of the individual because the only reason moral concepts such as “good” and “should” are necessary in the first place is that individuals exist and need principled guidance in order to sustain and further their lives. Any attempt to turn the purpose of morality against the individual—the fundamental unit of human reality and thus of moral concern—is not merely a moral crime; it is an attempt to annihilate morality as such.
To be sure, societies—consisting as they do of individuals—need moral principles, too, but only for the purpose of enabling individuals to act in ways necessary to sustain and further their own lives. Thus, the one moral principle that a society must embrace if it is to be a civilized society is the principle of individual rights: the recognition of the fact that each individual is morally an end in himself and has a moral prerogative to act on his judgment for his own sake, free from coercion by others. On this principle, each individual has a right to think and act as he sees fit; he has a right to produce and trade the products of his efforts voluntarily, by mutual consent to mutual benefit; he has a right to disregard complaints that he is not serving some so-called “greater good”—and no one, including groups and governments, has a moral right to force him to act against his judgment. Ever.
This brings us to the realm of politics.
Politics, Individualism, and Collectivism
The politics of individualism is essentially what the American Founders had in mind when they created the United States but were unable to implement perfectly: a land of liberty, a society in which the government does only one thing and does it well—protects the rights of all individuals equally by banning the use of physical force from social relationships and by using force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. In such a society, government uses force as necessary against thieves, extortionists, murderers, rapists, terrorists, and the like—but it leaves peaceful, rights-respecting citizens completely free to live their lives and pursue their happiness in accordance with their own judgment.
Toward that end, a proper, rights-respecting government consists of legislatures, courts, police, a military, and any other branches and departments necessary to the protection of individual rights. This is the essence of the politics of individualism, which follows logically from the metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics of individualism.
What politics follows from those of collectivism?
“America works best when its citizens put aside individual self-interest to do great things together—when we elevate the common good,” writes David Callahan of the collectivist think tank Demos. Michael Tomasky, editor of Democracy, elaborates, explaining that modern “liberalism was built around the idea—the philosophical principle—that citizens should be called upon to look beyond their own self-interest and work for a greater common interest.”
“This, historically, is the moral basis of liberal governance—not justice, not equality, not rights, not diversity, not government, and not even prosperity or opportunity. Liberal governance is about demanding of citizens that they balance self-interest with common interest. . . . This is the only justification leaders can make to citizens for liberal governance, really: That all are being asked to contribute to a project larger than themselves. . . . citizens sacrificing for and participating in the creation of a common good.”
This is the ideology of today’s left in general, including, of course, President Barack Obama. As Obama puts it, we must heed the “call to sacrifice” and uphold our “core ethical and moral obligation” to “look out for one another” and to “be unified in service to a greater good.” “Individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations.”
But modern “liberals” and new “progressives” are not alone in their advocacy of the politics of collectivism. Joining them are impostors of the right, such as Rick Santorum, who pose as advocates of liberty but, in their perverted advocacy, annihilate the very concept of liberty.
“Properly defined,” writes Santorum, “liberty is freedom coupled with responsibility to something bigger or higher than the self. It is the pursuit of our dreams with an eye toward the common good. Liberty is the dual activity of lifting our eyes to the heavens while at the same time extending our hands and hearts to our neighbor.” It is not “the freedom to be as selfish as I want to be,” or “the freedom to be left alone,” but “the freedom to attend to one’s duties—duties to God, to family, and to neighbors.”
Such is the state of politics in America today, and this is the choice we face: Americans can either continue to ignore the fact that collectivism is utterly corrupt from the ground up, and thus continue down the road to statism and tyranny—or we can look at reality, use our minds, acknowledge the absurdities of collectivism and the atrocities that follow from it, and shout the truth from the rooftops and across the Internet.
What would happen if we did the latter? As Ayn Rand said, “You would be surprised how quickly the ideologists of collectivism retreat when they encounter a confident, intellectual adversary. Their case rests on appealing to human confusion, ignorance, dishonesty, cowardice, despair. Take the side they dare not approach; appeal to human intelligence.”
(Originally published in The Objective Standard, February 19, 2012)
What President Trump Should Say to the People of Iran
Dear People of Iran,
Congratulations on beginning your revolution for freedom from the theocratic regime that oppresses you. The people of America and I urge you to follow through.
We morally support and encourage any and all efforts on your part to overthrow the tyrannical regime, to free yourselves from its unjust, brutal rule, and to establish a rights-respecting republic. Doing so will enable you to think for yourselves, to act on your own judgment, to engage and trade with the rest of the free (or semi-free) world. In short, it will enable you to live fully as human beings.
Establishing and maintaining a rights-respecting republic is not easy. But you can do it. The Founders of America identified the essential elements of such a republic, and I urge you to read what they wrote on the subject—especially the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Federalist Papers. I also encourage you to read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by the American philosopher Ayn Rand, which shows how and why a fully free, truly capitalist society is not only practical, in that it enables the production of great wealth and prosperity—but also, and more fundamentally, moral, in that it is based on and protects individual rights.
The principle of individual rights is the recognition of the fact that each person—regardless of race, creed, status, or wealth—has a moral prerogative to live his life as he sees fit (the right to life); to act on his own judgment, free of coercion (liberty); to keep and use the product of his effort (property); to pursue the goals and values of his choosing (the pursuit of happiness); and to express his views, regardless of what others think or feel about them (freedom of speech).
This principle is the foundation on which individual prosperity and civilized society depend. I not only encourage you to embrace it; I encourage you to outstrip America in your recognition and acceptance of this vital truth. That would be beautiful. And it would give Americans something noble to strive for.
As for technological or military assistance from the United States...
[continued at Thinking in Principles]
Neither feelings, faith, nor consensus are a means of knowledge—and when people pretend that they are, violence ensues. youtu.be/9SlLnUj3N5c?si=ebQN… youtu.be/9SlLnUj3N5c?si=ebQN…
Either faith is a means of knowledge—or it isn’t. If it is, anything goes—from loving your neighbor to sacrificing your son to 10/7. If it isn’t, every claim to knowledge by faith is nonsense. To the extent this is recognized, religion is dead. Help it die youtu.be/87AOSwNQAVo?si=kGaU…
Here's how rights relate to religion and where rights actually come from: youtu.be/Pyqfbu_QXlk?si=5wqR…
2
96
Thank You, Israel—and Please Keep Going
Dear @Israel,
Congratulations on your moral, selfish decision to dismantle the Islamic regime in Iran—a regime that, from its inception, has sought to destroy you. And thank you for beginning what America should have done long ago but was too paralyzed by relativism and religion to do.
The Iranian theocracy and its henchmen have not only funded, orchestrated, and celebrated the rape, torture, and murder of Israelis; they also have tortured, maimed, and murdered many Americans. Yet every U.S. president from Jimmy Carter to Donald Trump 2.0 has shirked his moral obligation to end this evil; and each has worked to dissuade you from ending it, too. Disgraceful cowards, one and all.
You, of late, have chosen a noble path. You have rejected altruistic pressures to “love your enemy,” to “turn the other cheek,” to “make a deal.” You apparently have come to see that the only practical approach to dealing with murderous Muslim maniacs is to act morally—that is, to identify and destroy their sponsors, leaders, gangs, and military assets. Bravo.
I wish this righteous reckoning had come before October 7. I’m sure you do, too. But whereas the past can’t be undone, the future remains unwritten.
What will it be? Will you see this moral mission through to its ethical end? Will you utterly destroy the Islamic regime in Iran; eliminate all remnants of the Houthis, Hezbollah, and Hamas; and free Israel of the constant threat posed by this multi-headed death cult?
If you do, you will not only secure the safety of Israel, you will also show America and the world at large that the moral is the practical. That would be beautiful.
Please follow through.
I’m super excited about LevelUp 2025: Philosophy for Flourishing.
Check out the schedule and lineup below. And be sure to register today, as early-bird pricing ends at midnight tonight.
Here’s what’s in store:
JULY 16
Opening Reception & Banquet—you’ll meet life-loving people from all corners of the globe.
JULY 17
• Sarah Biddle and I will discuss How to Get the Most out of LevelUp
• I’ll present Thinking Tools for Loving Life
• Thomas Walker-Werth will discuss Facts and Myths About Independence
• Carrie-Ann Biondi will discuss Aristotle and Ayn Rand on the Nature and Art of Friendship
• Andrew Bernstein will discuss Judging the West: The Good, the Bad, and the Beautiful
• Tim Chermak will present Walt Disney and the Business of Creativity
• Evening activities will include karaoke, dancing, enjoying the pool, and more.
JULY 18
• Carl Barney will present AI and the Future of Higher Education
• Angel Walker-Werth will discuss Fiction as Soul-Fuel: Why Stories Move Us
• Angel, Thomas, and I will host a Q&A on Philosophy and Independent Thinking
• Kiyah Willis will discuss Liberalism vs. Nationalism: Which Road Leads to Freedom?
• Timothy Sandefur will present The Heartbreak and Heroism of Sammy Davis, Jr.
• Evening activities will include Disney World, live music, jam sessions, enjoying the pool, and more.
JULY 19
• Jason Bateman and Thomas will discuss Heroes of Innovation and Progress
• Ely Lassman will discuss AI and Philosophy: Flourishing in Our New Age
• Lee Sandstead will present Highway to Health: Exercise and Nutrition for Living Your Best Life
• Eric Daniels will present Learning for Life: A User’s Guide for the Active Mind
• Angel, Justyna Piątek-Pawłowska, and I will discuss How to Level Up All Year Long
• And, at the Closing Banquet & Dance, you and your friends will celebrate the start of your future of flourishing.
Registration is risk-free, as LevelUp has a 100% money-back guarantee. If for any reason you can’t come or don’t enjoy the conference, OSI will refund your registration fee in full. Can’t beat that!
Early-bird savings end tonight—so register now.
See you in Orlando!
Happy Ayn Rand’s birthday!
Given the countless misrepresentations of Rand’s ideas circulating these days (from WSJ, Jordan Peterson, Jacobin, Ben Shapiro, etc.), don’t let the straw men crowd out the Real McCoy.
Here’s What’s Wrong with Ayn Rand’s Philosophy
Many articles have been written about what’s wrong with Ayn Rand’s philosophy. But, to my knowledge, none of them presents her ideas accurately. So I thought it would be helpful to write one that does.
Here’s what’s wrong with Rand’s ideas:
Rand held that “existence exists,” that reality is real, that there is a world out there, and that we are conscious of it. She held that everything in existence is something specific; everything has a nature; a thing is what it is. (A snake is a snake. A woman is a woman. A pillar of salt is a pillar of salt.) She held that a thing can act only in accordance with its nature. (A snake can slither; it cannot speak. A woman can speak; she can’t become a pillar of salt.) And Rand held that there is only one reality: the one we perceive, the one we experience, the one in which we live.
Where to start with all of the problems in just that one paragraph?
To begin with, the idea that “existence exists” excludes the idea that existence doesn’t exist. It denies the subjectivist, pragmatist, postmodernist view that reality is an illusion, a mental construct, a social convention. Obviously, people who insist that reality is not real are not going to buy in to a philosophy that says it is real.
So that’s one huge problem with Rand’s philosophy.
Now consider her view that only one reality exists. This excludes the notion that a second reality exists; it excludes the idea of a “supernatural” realm, the realm of “God.” Likewise, her view that everything has a specific nature, that a thing is what it is, excludes the possibility that some things are not what they are. For instance, it excludes the possibility that a dead person can be alive (life after death), the possibility that wine can be blood or that bread can be flesh (transubstantiation), and the possibility that the Earth came into existence hundreds of thousands of years after the first Homo sapiens roamed it. Similarly, the idea that things can act only in accordance with their nature excludes the possibility of miracles—so: no Immaculate Conception, no virgin birth (of Jesus), no living inside a whale for three days, no walking on water, no faith healing, and so on.
Needless to say, people who insist on the existence of God, life after death, creationism, and miracles will not buy in to a philosophy that leaves no room for such things.
The problems with Rand’s philosophy are mounting rapidly—and we’ve just begun.
Another major problem is Rand’s view that man acquires knowledge by means of reason, the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by his senses. According to Rand, insofar as a person observes reality via his senses; integrates his observations into concepts, generalizations, and principles; checks his thinking for contradictions; and checks his conclusions for consistency with his ever-expanding network of observation-based integrations—he can acquire knowledge. Indeed, according to Rand human beings have acquired massive amounts of knowledge, which is why science has advanced so far and man has accomplished so much.
Well, that view will not go over well with skeptics, pragmatists, and postmodernists who argue that man cannot acquire knowledge—at least not knowledge of reality. Because man’s sensory apparatuses process all incoming data before it reaches consciousness, these skeptics argue, man is conscious not of an external reality or a world out there, but rather of internal modifications or distortions.
“No human being has ever experienced an objective world, or even a world at all,” writes Sam Harris. “The sights and sounds and pulsings that you experience” are consequences of processed data—data that has been “structured, edited, or amplified by the nervous system.” Thus, “The world that you see and hear is nothing more than a modification of your consciousness.”
This fashionable view is rooted in the ideas of Immanuel Kant, who wrote: “What objects may be in themselves, and apart from all this receptivity of our sensibility [i.e., perception], remains completely unknown to us.” Once we understand this, Kant says, we “realise that not only are the drops of rain mere appearances, but that even their round shape, nay even the space in which they fall, are nothing in themselves, but merely modifications” within consciousness. In principle, Kant says, the actual object—the object as it really is—“remains unknown to us.”
Indeed, says Kant, it is an error even to regard “external objects” as “things-in-themselves, which exist independently of us and of our sensibility, and which are therefore outside us.” The truth, he says, is that “external objects” are “mere appearances” or “species of [internal] representations,” and the things we perceive “are something only through these representations. Apart from them they are nothing.”
When philosophers or intellectuals claim that we cannot know reality because our sensory apparatuses distort the data before it reaches consciousness, they may sound profound or impressive (at least to each other). But, then, along comes Ayn Rand, who points out that such claims amount to the view that “man is blind, because he has eyes—deaf, because he has ears—deluded, because he has a mind—and the things he perceives do not exist, because he perceives them.”
As you might imagine, such straightforward clarifications, which abound in Rand’s works, can make skeptics feel as ignorant as they claim to be. So that’s another problem with Rand’s philosophy.
Further, Rand holds that reason is man’s only means of gaining knowledge. This excludes the possibility that revelation, faith, feelings, or extrasensory perception (ESP) is a means of knowledge. On her view, to embrace ideas not supported by evidence is to err. Thus Rand sees all forms of mysticism—all claims to a non-sensory, non-rational means of knowledge—as baseless, arbitrary, illegitimate.
That, of course, will not fly with religionists, subjectivists, psychics, or others who claim to acquire knowledge through non-sensory, non-rational means.
And then there are the myriad problems posed by Rand’s conception of free will.
Rand holds that people do indeed possess free will—and that it resides in a fundamental choice: to think or not to think, to focus one’s mind or not to do so, to go by facts or to go by feelings. The problems with this idea manifest on several levels.
For starters, if people have free will, then not only are their choices their responsibility, so too are the consequences of their choices. If a person characteristically chooses to think, and if his thinking guides him to build a business and make a lot of money, then the business and the money are his achievements. Likewise, if a person characteristically chooses not to think, and if his non-thinking renders him poor and miserable, then his poverty and misery are his fault.
Well, egalitarians, socialists, communists, and the like are not going to accept that for a minute. People who want to organize society in a way that ignores or denies personal responsibility will not accept a philosophy that upholds the very principle that gives rise to and necessitates personal responsibility.
Nor will Rand’s conception of free will jibe with Jews, Christians, or Muslims who take their religion seriously. If people truly choose to think or not to think, then the notion of an omnipotent, omniscient “God” goes out the window. Think about it: If people are free to think or not to think, then whatever powers an alleged God is said to possess, he can’t know in advance which alternative people are going to choose. If God existed and knew in advance how people were going to choose, then their “choices” would be preordained—thus they wouldn’t be genuine choices. Likewise, if people are free to think or not to think, then God can’t make them choose to think. Nor can he make them choose not to think. You see the problem.
In short, Rand’s view of free will leaves no room for the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful God. This will not sit well with anyone who insists that such a God exists.
And that’s still just the tip of Rand’s free-will iceberg. Her view of volition leads to a whole host of additional problems. Consider a few more.
If people choose to think or not to think, then they choose all of their actions that are governed by that fundamental choice as well. For instance, on Rand’s view, a person can choose to be honest or dishonest. He can refuse to pretend that facts are other than they are—or he can choose to engage in such pretense. Importantly, Rand’s views on honesty and dishonesty are not merely about telling the truth versus lying. Rand holds that if a person knows something to be true but pretends that he doesn’t know it, then even if he doesn’t lie about it—even if he maintains the pretense only in his own mind—he is being dishonest. For instance, on Rand’s view, if a person knows that a friend has acted unjustly but pretends that he doesn’t know it, he’s being dishonest. And if a person knows that he owes someone an apology but doesn’t extend it, he’s being dishonest. In such cases, although the person has not lied, he nevertheless is pretending that facts are other than they are.
Well, people who choose occasionally to pretend that they don’t know what they do know—and who want to continue in this fashion—will not embrace a philosophy that says they are able to stop deluding themselves and morally corrupt if they don’t. (Of course, they might pretend to embrace it, but that’s another matter.)
Likewise, on Rand’s view, a person can choose to think for himself, or he can turn to others and expect them to think for him. In other words, he can engage in independent thinking or in what Rand termed “second-handedness.” (An example of independent thinking would be someone reading a philosopher’s works and deciding for himself whether they make sense. An example of second-handedness would be someone turning to others to see what they say he should think about the philosopher’s ideas.) Rand’s insistence that people should face reality and think for themselves as a matter of unwavering principle is a problem—because many people are afraid to think for themselves. Many people prefer to avoid that effort, to shirk that responsibility, and to passively accept the ideas of their group, their leader, their tribe. Such people will not embrace a philosophy that upholds independent thinking as a fundamental virtue.
This brings us to the mother lode of problems with Ayn Rand’s philosophy—and to the point of the whole thing.
Rand’s aforementioned principles calling for people to uphold reason, to be honest, and to think for themselves are part and parcel of the moral code she called “rational egoism” or “rational self-interest.” This moral code holds that the objective standard of moral value is man’s life—by which Rand means the requirements of human life given the kind of being that humans are. On her view, because humans are rational beings—beings whose basic means of survival is the use of reason—that which sustains and furthers the life of a rational being is good (or moral), and that which harms or destroys the life of a rational being is bad (or evil).
Further, because Rand sees human beings as individuals—each with his own body, his own mind, his own life—she holds that each individual’s own life is properly his own ultimate value. She holds that each individual should choose and pursue his own life-serving values, and that he should never surrender a greater value for the sake of a lesser value—he should never commit a sacrifice. As she puts it:
“Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.”
Well, such a moral code clearly will not fly with people who want to maintain the traditional notion that people have a moral duty to sacrifice themselves or their values for the sake of others (i.e., altruism). Nor will it fly with people who feel that they have a moral right to sacrifice other people as they see fit (predation).
Not only does Rand regard both self-sacrifice and the sacrifice of others as immoral; she also regards the use of any form or degree of initiatory physical force against human beings as properly illegal. In her words, the essential characteristics of a civilized society are that “men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit”; and that “no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others.”
Needless to say, Rand’s staunch advocacy of voluntary exchange to mutual benefit and her moral opposition to the use of force as a means of obtaining values from people will not fly with people or governments that want to use force to obtain values from people. Criminals who want to steal people’s belongings, commit fraud, rape people, or violate rights in other ways will not embrace a moral code that forbids them to do so. Likewise, governments that want to force people to serve “the common good” or “the community” or “the master race” or some other “master” will not recognize or uphold a morality that forbids them to initiate physical force against people. And pull-peddling businessmen who want government to forcibly control, regulate, or cripple their competitors will not recognize or uphold a moral code that forbids such coercion either.
This problem—Rand’s moral opposition to the use of physical force against human beings—lies at the very base of her political theory, where it serves as a bridge between her moral code and her political views. This is where Rand’s theory of rights comes into the picture. As she put it:
“‘Rights’ are a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.”
Rand sees individual rights as the governing principle of a civilized society because she sees rights as deriving from man’s nature and as requirements of his life in a social context. She elaborates:
“A ‘right’ is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)”
According to Rand, the only proper purpose of government is to protect individual rights by banning physical force from social relationships—and by using force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.
Clearly, no one who wants government to do more than that will embrace Rand’s philosophy. No one who wants government to forcibly redistribute wealth, or to forbid certain kinds of speech, or to forbid certain kinds of consensual adult sex, or to restrict freedom in any other way will embrace a philosophy that demands principled recognition and absolute protection of individual rights.
A final problem worth mentioning about Rand and her philosophy is that she wrote in plain, intelligible English and defined her terms clearly as a matter of course, so that anyone who wants to understand her ideas can do so with relative ease. Toward this end, in addition to presenting her ideas in various nonfiction works, she dramatized them in spellbinding fiction—such as her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged—thus enabling people to see her ideas in practice. Well, this will not go over well with modern philosophers or academics who insist that philosophy must be written in academese, technical jargon, or impenetrable fog. Nor will it pass muster with anyone who feels that dramatizing or concretizing ideas in fiction somehow disqualifies them.
We could go on. Rand’s philosophy involves many additional problems. But the foregoing is a concise indication of the trouble it causes.
So, next time the subject of what’s wrong with Ayn Rand’s ideas comes up, be sure to share this brief sketch of the kinds of problems involved. It’s better for people to learn what’s wrong with Rand’s actual ideas than to waste time contemplating takedowns of straw men.
(From The Objective Standard, Vol. 13, No. 1)
I’ve launched a Substack titled Thinking in Principles: Conceptual Tools for Loving Life and Advancing Liberty.
In my first post, I explore a range of conceptual fallacies—package-deals, anti-concepts, frozen abstractions, floating abstractions, and stolen concepts—while illuminating the principles they violate. It’s a living document, which I’ll refine and expand with additional examples over time.
I hope you enjoy the first post. And be sure to subscribe for new posts and updates!
Here are my replies to several questions regarding my debate with .@CosmicSkeptic.
Check it out and let me know what you think!
youtu.be/FcMpHtAH6RM?si=nzuF…