From some Twitter posts:
Stephan Kinsella @NSKinsella
Reality, reason, self-interest/individualism, capitalism (individual rights). By this standard I am an Objectivist, and it’s mostly because of her influence, even if I would disagree with her application of her general/abstract “capitalist/individual rights” view to the state, and to intellectual property, to me these are errors in application; the basic concept of capitalism/individual rights is sound.
I don’t think she pioneered this combination of views and values, though she and her followers try to claim she did, nor is Objectivism unique in this respect. Probably lots people hold these views without ever having been exposed to Rand but she is the most notorious and explicit promoter of this interrelated set of views.
“Ayn Rand was once asked if she could summarize the essence of her philosophy while standing on one foot. She replied: “Metaphysics: Objective Reality. Epistemology: Reason. Ethics: Self-interest. Politics: Capitalism.”In the first entry in this collection, Rand expands on this encapsulation. “If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. ‘Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed’ or ‘Wishing won’t make it so.’ 2. ‘You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.’ 3. ‘Man is an end in himself.’ 4. ‘Give me liberty or give me death.’“If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency — to understand, to define, to prove, and to apply them — requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot. . . .”
https://x.com/Lieboisout/status/1853091526206734635
Michael Liebowitz @Lieboisout
Who agrees with this, but isn’t an objectivist?
Stephan Kinsella @NSKinsella
https://x.com/NSKinsella/status/1853100106767069416
It depends on how you define Objectivist. If by Objectivist you mean someone who agrees with this statement, then … no one. But that would then include people who came to these ideas independently or from thinkers other than Rand. If by Objectivist you mean people who agree with the integrated whole of the philosophy as laid out in the writing of Ayn Rand or other writings authorized by her, then lots of non-Objectivists would agree with this statement despite being non-Objectivists (such as me).
Michael Liebowitz @Lieboisout
Would you argue, as does my interlocutor, that application of the primacy of existence necessitates coming to her conclusions on epistemology and ethics?
Stephan Kinsella @NSKinsella
Let me put it this way.
“Would you argue, as does my interlocutor, that application of the primacy of existence necessitates coming to her conclusions on epistemology and ethics?” Well, the general way the 4 principles of Objectivism are put in the summary version, does not say anything about the “primacy of existence”–that’s just an odd Rand phrasing–nor does it obviously imply that the 4 principles are interrelated or that oen implies the other. One can hold the 4 principles without taking a position on whether one of them is primary; or even without taking a position on whether they are interrelated, or are independent principles. I think they are interrelated but there is no one of the 4 principles that is obviously “primary” in the sense that it implies or even encapsulates the others. There are different types of logical or other primacy, for example. For example, temporal or chronological–the way humans learn developmentally can differ from other forms of priority. For example first a baby/human learns sense data, then concepts, then language, and then reasoning. Later more abstractions and reason lead you to higher level integrations. So chronologically first you have sense data (percepts), then concepts, then language (which requires concepts and sense data), then reasoning (which requires language) might be “first” in that sense, but once you grasp enough could realize that “reality” exists and is “primary” in this sense, and that reason might be chronologically first in the sense that you have to first have reason to understand that there is an objective reality, but then you realize reality is “first” (“primacy”) and consciouness and reason only comes “after”. But this is all pointless hair-splitting. Obviously reality is a seamless whole, and while we live in an objective reality it is our faculty of reason which helps us to know and identify this. The human perspective requires both: reality to be real, and reason to exist and be efficacious so that we know this.
As for ethics and politics–the two other branches of Rand’s philosophy, the two normative branches: one is about morality or ethics, the other is about meta-ethics in the sense of applying ethics to the field of political/legal norms (“capitalism”)–they are normative so are a different realm of study than the first two. Certaintly adopting the stance that reality is real, and that reason is our faculty of cognition, is essential to develping an understaning of the nature, function, and purpose of norms, values, politics, but it seems vague and fuzzy to just say “the primacy of existence implies the Randian ethics.” Depends on what you mean “implies,” etc.
