Hobbes + Kant + Nietzsche = Ayn Rand...?
Posted by Maphesdus 12 years, 7 months ago to Philosophy
Over the past year or so, I've developed an interest in philosophy, and I've been starting to read some of the selected works of prominent philosophers, as well as commentary on their views. As a result, I've started to notice connections between their works and Ayn Rand. There are three philosophers in particular who seem to have very strong similarities to Ayn Rand:
Thomas Hobbes first purported the idea of rational selfishness.
Immanuel Kant endorsed rigid moral absolutism.
Friedrich Nietzsche established the theory of the overman, or super man (Übermensch), as well as the Master-Slave Morality, and was a firm advocate of individualism.
The parallels between Ayn Rand's own philosophy and the views of these three views philosophers (especially Nitzsche), seem to be too close to be mere coincidence. Considering that Ayn Rand majored in philosophy during her university years, I think it's highly probable that she had studied their works, and that they helped shape her own view of the world and her philosophy.
For example, consider how Ayn Rand's ideas of morality and immorality almost perfectly mirror Nietzsche's concepts of master morality and slave morality. Slave morality values things like kindness, humility and sympathy, while master morality values pride, strength, and nobility. Though unlike Nietzsche, who was arguably unclear about which of the two moralities was preferable, Ayn Rand was absolutely explicit: the master morality was the only morality; its opposite, slave morality, was immorality.
Ayn Rand's concept regarding men of ability also seems to very closely follow Nietzsche's overman ideal -- that there are superior men on whom the rest of society depends. I've read some commentary by Michael Prescott who also noticed the strong resemblance between Nietzche and Rand, and he even went so far as to say that reading Nietzsche is like reading Rand with the gloves off, a statement with which I personally would have to agree.
Ayn Rand claimed that no philosopher ever influenced her except Aristotle, but seeing such strong parallels between Rand and other philosophers makes me question how truthful that statement is...
Anyway, I just thought it was interesting to see the comparisons. Feel free to post your own thoughts.
Thomas Hobbes first purported the idea of rational selfishness.
Immanuel Kant endorsed rigid moral absolutism.
Friedrich Nietzsche established the theory of the overman, or super man (Übermensch), as well as the Master-Slave Morality, and was a firm advocate of individualism.
The parallels between Ayn Rand's own philosophy and the views of these three views philosophers (especially Nitzsche), seem to be too close to be mere coincidence. Considering that Ayn Rand majored in philosophy during her university years, I think it's highly probable that she had studied their works, and that they helped shape her own view of the world and her philosophy.
For example, consider how Ayn Rand's ideas of morality and immorality almost perfectly mirror Nietzsche's concepts of master morality and slave morality. Slave morality values things like kindness, humility and sympathy, while master morality values pride, strength, and nobility. Though unlike Nietzsche, who was arguably unclear about which of the two moralities was preferable, Ayn Rand was absolutely explicit: the master morality was the only morality; its opposite, slave morality, was immorality.
Ayn Rand's concept regarding men of ability also seems to very closely follow Nietzsche's overman ideal -- that there are superior men on whom the rest of society depends. I've read some commentary by Michael Prescott who also noticed the strong resemblance between Nietzche and Rand, and he even went so far as to say that reading Nietzsche is like reading Rand with the gloves off, a statement with which I personally would have to agree.
Ayn Rand claimed that no philosopher ever influenced her except Aristotle, but seeing such strong parallels between Rand and other philosophers makes me question how truthful that statement is...
Anyway, I just thought it was interesting to see the comparisons. Feel free to post your own thoughts.
Your last statement certainly is true, but the most influential philosopher other than Aristotle (whose philosophy Objectivism is closest to) is John Locke. Rand admitted she was originally enchanted with Nietzsche but completely rejected master/slave morality. Despite this, there seem to be elements of Nietzsche in her fictional heroes, namely bigger than life heroes, we mere mortals are not likely to live up to.
Rand's philosophy of Objectivism is the antithesis of Kant. Kant is platonic, does not believe in objective reality, we can't trust our senses, our reason is limited. "rigid moral absolutism" is not the same as a natural rights' reason based morality. Kant's morality is based on arbitrary dictates, much like religion. Rand's morality is based on reason.
Rand, Locke, and Aristotle were defining philosophies based on objective reality which is the same method used to understand our physical world.
Hobbes believed greater good trumps rational self interest. but I am not tht knowledgeable in his writings.
Each of the philosophers you mentioned have something to offer and some of it is in line with objectivism, but do dig deeper. You will find her disagreements and many of the reasons she formed her own philosophy.
Be careful of Hobbes. There is a reason the term Hobbesian is considered an epithet by individualists and small government advocates. He believed the state should orchestrate your existence and only the state could efficiently solve societal problems. "He is infamous for having used the social contract method to arrive at the astonishing conclusion that we ought to submit to the authority of an absolute—undivided and unlimited—sovereign power."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes...
Kant was a mystic and much of his philosophy was contrary to reason. He was contradictory to Aristotle's law of identity. A is not A with him.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/kant,_...
Nietzsche sacrificed individual reason for individual will. Rand was enamored with him early on but later found fault. "Nietzsche’s rebellion against altruism consisted of replacing the sacrifice of oneself to others by the sacrifice of others to oneself. He proclaimed that the ideal man is moved, not by reason, but by his “blood,” by his innate instincts, feelings and will to power—that he is predestined by birth to rule others and sacrifice them to himself, while they are predestined by birth to be his victims and slaves—that reason, logic, principles are futile and debilitating, that morality is useless, that the “superman” is “beyond good and evil,” that he is a “beast of prey” whose ultimate standard is nothing but his own whim. Thus Nietzsche’s rejection of the Witch Doctor consisted of elevating Attila into a moral ideal—which meant: a double surrender of morality to the Witch Doctor." For The New Intellectual pg. 34 paperback.
In general on her relation to other philosophers: You may find this link interesting.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/book/preface.h...
Regards,
O.A.
I quite agree. There is a reason Locke was regarded by many as the "Father of Empiricism". He has influenced my thinking and it is clear Rand also had an appreciation for his work.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Why not study the world and form your own philosophy?
Good to hear from you as always j_IR1776wg.
O.A.
If you go here:
http://drunks-and-lampposts.com/2012/06/...
you will find Rand at the middle left in Purple as part of the English Empiricist-American Pragmatist tradition. She would disagree (violently).
In particular, she considered Immanuel Kant (not Karl Marx) to be her greatest enemy. The name of the philosophy is Objectivism, not Absolutism. It is easy to find students of Objectivism who attempt absolute statements where they do not exist. Some things are absolute. Not everything is. For an Objectivist context is highly important. That does not make Objectivists into relativists or contextualists or situationalists.
In Atlas Shrugged, of course, pouring steel requires absolutes. As she wrote about the girders in the mill, every beam and strut was placed in answer to one question: Right or Wrong?
But should you lend money to your brother-in-law for his university tuition? No absolute answer exists, though some who are attracted to Objectivism may attempt an absolutist claim against altruism in that case.
Ayn Rand rejected Immanuel Kant's deontology.
In Understanding Objectivism, Leonard Peikoff explains the errors of students whose understanding is incomplete. They call into Monism attempting to derive everything from A is A. They create a false hierarchy where metaphysics is the foundation of epistemology.
Hitler was certainly an absolutist. He was especially fond of Nietzsche's "Will to Power" a manuscript unpublished in Freddie's lifetime.
"Thus Spake Zarathustra" certainly expounded the "superman" theories. But I find nothing of the sort in Rand. The working out of the creator's role and place in society may be somewhat similar but I think the end result was nowhere near the same in Rand and the philosophers mentioned.
Rand was grappling with concepts of individual enterprise AFTER the socialist build up during the FDR years. She witnessed public control of art and was not happy with it. She knew that there was a constant fight between an artist or creator's driven pursuits and the need to earn a living inside of a society molded by demagogs and opportunists who create nothing but try to manage everything. Albert Schweitzer penned some similar sentiments.
I thought I made that very clear in my post.