The following letter was sent to me by a representative of Reformed Transcendental Christian Theology in response to my advocacy of Objectivism on the evening of February 19, 1999. As you will see by the statements this individual has repeated, the entirety of this letter is a very poor attempt to construct a straw man argument purporting to refute the philosophy of Objectivism. In no place does the author of this letter demonstrate barely more than the most superficial familiarity of the tenets of Objectivism, choosing instead merely to pepper his statements with words that he associates with Objectivist philosophy, thus only appearing to have an understanding of its rudimentary systems. Below I deal with each statement asserted by this author, and expose its fallacies and misrepresentations.

PHILOSOPHY OF AYN RAND

"The philosophy [of Objectivism] can be accounted for by the objectivists own self-interests."

Hasty generalization. While it is true that Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism does advocate rational self-interest, it does not begin with the premise of man’s own self-interests as its starting point. The statement above indicates the misunderstanding that Objectivism finds its foundation midstream in the province of morality, while this is not true at all. Miss Rand made this point explicitly clear in all her writings. She emphasized without any ambiguity whatsoever that the foundation of her philosophical system is based on the recognition of the fact that existence exists, and the corollaries produced by this recognition.

"They believe in objectivism, because it suits their end."

This statement is only partially correct, and in that minute partiality it fails to take into account the fact that Objectivism as a system is the only philosophy that begins with a proper view of existence, reality and man’s nature as a rational being. This statement also implies as its premise the notion that a philosophy should not ‘suit [the] ends’ of its employer (i.e., the individual who employs the philosophy), but that the individual should suit the philosophy. In other words, the philosophy should not serve the needs of man, rather, man should serve the philosophy, even though a philosophy is a collection of abstractions, with no metaphysical requirements of its own, with no consciousness, no desires, no needs, etc., all of which belong only to sentient living beings. Objectivism does not embrace the religious view of philosophy, that man must subordinate himself to the philosophical doctrines of his ‘worldview,’ as if some standard other than his nature and his life were its foundation. Instead, Objectivism is designed for man, and thus the system as a comprehensive view of life serves him and his needs.

The partiality of this statement also implies that the Objectivist adheres to Objectivist principles only inasmuch as they might ‘suit’ him, thus attempting to posit through this suspicious implication that Objectivists base their choice to employ Objectivist principles purely by whim. Rand was again explicitly clear that this is completely contrary to Objectivism as a system of rational integration intended to equip man with the necessary conceptual tools needed for living his life on earth. (See especially PWNI, title article; also Galt’s Speech in AS.)

This statement is completely erroneous in its application to the principles of Objectivism as a philosophical system. For instance, in Objectivist metaphysics, the study of existence, reality and nature, Objectivism recognizes that metaphysical subjectivism, the philosophical root of all irrationality, is invalid. Subjectivism is the view that existence finds its source in some form of consciousness. Objectivism recognizes that this view commits the fallacy of the stolen concept. Its consequences in subsequent philosophical strata – epistemology, morality, politics, etc., result in a non-objective view of man’s nature, his requirements for knowledge, his guide to values and actions and his interaction with other human beings.

Rand makes this explicitly clear in her writings. Observe:

Thus, one sees that the indictments made thus far fail to counter the philosophy of Objectivism as informed by Ayn Rand herself.

Furthermore, it might be well to point out a key element in this critical review of Objectivism, the word ‘autonomous’. Many Christian philosophers use the term ‘autonomous’ to condemn non-Christian worldviews. Basically, what they are saying when they charge that a particular worldview is ‘autonomous’ is that such a worldview does not submit itself to their form of god-belief. In other words, since Objectivism does not advocate the primacy of consciousness view of reality according to the doctrinal stipulations of their brand of Christianity (or any brand of religion for that matter, Christian or non-Christian), then it is in error. The question-begging nature of such charges is painfully obvious, but the Objectivist may want to make a note of this term as a prime indicator of the type of Christianity one is dealing with.

"The philosophy does not consider itself as existing in a historical context."

This statement is somewhat vague, but what can be gathered from it are the following. First, that Objectivism is eternally applicable. This is true for Objectivism as long as man exists, as long as he possesses the same nature that he possesses now, i.e., that he is a conscious, volitional, living being capable of rationality. Second, that Objectivism is not founded on some the validity of some historic event or personality. This is also true, since Objectivism is true regardless of what has happened in the past or who did what in the past (unlike religions). Objectivism is not rooted in some historic event, such as the fall of Rome or the execution of a martyr. Nor is the validity of Objectivism rooted in man’s sacrifice, either of the individual advocates of the philosophy, or of its founder, Ayn Rand. Objectivism as a comprehensive view of life serves man and his needs as a conscious being living on earth; it is fit for his existence, regardless of (but not in spite of) historic contexts.

"’No physical contradictions exist.’"

Although this statement does not follow from the last statement, it does purport to be a direct quotation from Miss Rand herself (this is inferred by the quotation marks). Is the author here objecting to this statement? Can the author provide any examples of physical contradictions?

"The Law of non-contradiction is ultimate rule for judging right and wrong."

Again, the facts of reality provide the context in which one must make his decisions and choices. Morality, as Rand pointed out, is context-dependent, and cannot take place in a vacuum. Since the Objectivist ethics is based on the system’s metaphysical axioms and Objectivist epistemology, the Law of Non-contradiction indeed applies, but it is not the sole criteria for judging right and wrong. The sense of this statement above implies the tendency to drop the context of man’s nature and his requirements as a living being from matters properly belonging to the province of morality. Objectivism is extremely careful of this point, and in its cautiousness not to lose site of the standard of man’s morality, man’s life itself, Objectivism resists asserting substantively vague statements such as this. Furthermore, consistent with this author’s preceding statements, it is apparent that this author is quite unfamiliar with Objectivist ethics, and thereby has no basis for his inflected assertions. Objectivism does not offer ‘rules’ in matters of morality. Instead, it offers principles. Morality is not a system of ‘laws,’ according to Objectivism, but a code of values which guides man’s choices and actions. Rule-sanctions do not belong to Objectivism; instead, these are the catchwords of altruism and deontological, ‘duty’-based ethical systems.

If one were to ask an Objectivist what the fundamental fact that governs moral judgments, the only proper answer would be: existence exists. There is no other fact that Objectivism ultimately reduces to, and therefore, this fact serves as the basis of all Objectivist doctrines. Objectivism as a system, however, represents a vast non-contradictory integration of ideas consistent with this root premise.

"It's [sic] epistemology assumes neutrality: that everyone exists in the same environment and has the same mental capacity for reasoning."

This statement is misleading at best, but is quite revealing of two things in particular. First, this statement reveals the fact that the individual asserting it knows very little about what he is talking about. At no point in any of Miss Rand’s literature does she ever make the charge that "everyone exists in the same environment" or that everyone "has the same mental capacity for reasoning". Miss Rand was quite aware of the importance of individual identity when speaking of man. Also, this statement tacitly implies an equation between ‘neutrality’ and objectivity, which is not only erroneous, but dishonest. However, one should bear in mind that this plea is not unusual with this type of Christian. Just as some Christians try to point out the ‘futility’ of ‘autonomous worldviews’ (see above), these same mystic philosophers also like to make the charge that ‘neutrality’ in assessing reality is impossible to man. The implication here is: that either one acknowledges the Christian deity, or deliberately ignores or spites the same deity. While such banter is riddled with presumptive error, it does reveal the Christian’s predilection towards shamelessly advocating a presumptive bias towards mysticism and subjectivism, rooted in the primacy of consciousness view of reality. For these reasons, this charge misses the mark completely in its applicability to Objectivism.

"I think part of the irony of objectivism is caught up with the problem of the one and many. Objectivistic rights emphasizes [sic] the rights of the individuals over the corporate. Because they base their so-called rights on "pure" reason, the individual loses his particularity in history, thus losing his individuality. I also think that so much emphasis on the individual causes one to have no way to account for natural laws, because each atom is individual, having individual inherent properties/values. But we have never seen (nor is it possible) for an atom or a person exist without an environment in which it is defined in terms of its relationship with everything else. Such individualism seems to lead to a universe of chaos, and a society of anarchy."

This statement is completely inapplicable to Objectivism for the following reasons. First of all, it commits a series of unfounded statements without sufficient logical continuity between them. Basically, this paragraph makes a series of empty, unjustified statements and non sequiturs. Second, the initial sentence alleges that Objectivism cannot deal with the problems of concept-formation. Not only is this not true in the case of Objectivism, this statement makes no attempt to document any alleged failure in Objectivist epistemology by dealing with the theory of concepts Miss Rand identified (specifically in her primer on the subject, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, specifically chapters one "Cognition and Measurement" and two "Concept-Formation"). This statement implies that Objectivism does not sufficiently deal with the problem of concept-formation and/or abstraction, but fails even to make an attempt at substantiation.

Then, as if to leapfrog from specifically epistemological problems to those addressed in politics, the author continues to stumble along his way in his analysis of what he alleges to be defects of Objectivist philosophy. In no place does the author exhibit a strong grasp of Objectivist politics or the doctrine of individual rights. Although it is true that Objectivism does not recognize ‘group rights,’ it also recognizes that individuals do not have rights that can supercede those of the individuals who make up a group, or ‘corporate.’ The author here fails to identify properly what Objectivism advocates as far as epistemology and politics are concerned, and also fails to link the two provinces with any discussion of Objectivist ethics, upon which its political doctrines find their basis. The tendency towards constructing a straw man argument here is thus strongly suspected. This suspicion is more than adequately confirmed in the proceeding.

Thus it can be seen that Rand makes no arbitrary distinction such as ‘pure’ reason, which is a contentless fabrication. The author of this indictment against Objectivism again exposes his sheer ignorance of Rand’s philosophy as she identified it. Instead, the author appears to have mistaken the philosophy of Immanuel Kant as that of Objectivism. The notion "pure reason" gives this away without question. However, in epistemology, the only alternative to reason open to man is some form of non-reason (such as ‘faith’ or ‘revelation’).

Furthermore, it is through Rand’s ethical doctrine – the morality of rational self-interest, that Objectivism ensures the integrity of man’s individuality when it comes to his interpersonal relationships (the subject of the philosophical doctrines properly belonging to politics). An objective view of man’s rights cannot exist without an objective view of reality and of man’s nature as a rational being (note: the Bible never identifies man as such, hence one wonders how Christians can conceive of themselves as rational). Therefore, an objective view of man’s rights cannot be based on the subjective view of existence and man’s nature as presumed by the supernaturalism of religion and its associated mysticism. As Rand correctly responded to her detractors (most of whom were no more capable than the author of this indictment): "Check your premises."

Failing to offer any objective criterion by which to set the limits of the degree of emphasis to place on man’s nature as an individual being, this author cavalierly saunters through the expression of this objection as if it were a self-evident truth. This author, however, should check his premises. The fundamental motive in all religious evaluations of man’s nature is the intention to subordinate him (i.e., man the individual), either to the church body or to a supernatural being, or, more likely, both. Therefore, it is consistent that this author would express his problems with Objectivism’s recognition of the individual as a sovereign being in his own right, as an end in himself. Ayn Rand was very clear in her validation of this evaluation of man by reference to his existence as a living, conscious being, capable of reasoned thought. Reason, Rand argued, cannot be forced, coerced or commanded. Man, the individual, must be free to employ his mind as his nature demands of him, to pursue the facts of reality as he perceives them, to evaluate them according to his knowledge, and to rest on the verdicts he concludes as valid and sound. For the man of reason, no set of commandments or group of thugs, pious or otherwise, can replace these necessary acts. Man’s conceptual level of awareness cannot be shackled by the arbitrary whims of any violent corpus – be that a collective of anti-reality priests and religious sycophants, or one of anti-conceptual brutes and gang members – which seeks to seize his right to his own mind and ability to think. Commands are fit for computer chips and robots, not for men of reason.

"But we have never seen (nor is it possible) for an atom or a person [to] exist without an environment in which it is defined in terms of its relationship with everything else. Such individualism seems to lead to a universe of chaos, and a society of anarchy."

While it is true that man does not exist in a vacuum (Objectivism is extremely careful to recognize this fact), it is not the case that man must arbitrarily subordinate himself to his environment, or to his relationship to his environment. Indeed, man’s relationships provide the context of his being and action, but the standard of his action is his nature qua man, i.e., as a living, conscious being, with a specific nature, with a specific identity. A rational man never loses sight of his existence in objective reality. In fact, the rational man has the ability to exert his influence and control on his environment to a great and ever increasing extent. Our ability to control electricity, communicate over long distances instantaneously, travel through the air, and land on the moon all stand as testimony of this fact. In essence, man, through the power of reason (not faith!!) can subordinate his environment to his volition.

Again, the implication here is that individualism, even in the hands of Objectivism, necessarily leads to anarchy. This implication, however, fails to take into account the metaphysical, epistemological and moral bases of Objectivism’s advocacy of individualism. In fact, individualism in the rational sense is completely incompatible with anarchical political systems. Rand again was very clear about the foundation of the political system she advocated, namely laissez-faire capitalism.

Oddly, it is the same group of apologists and theologians who attribute American heritage philosophy and its success in our nation to biblical principles who also stammer and spit against the doctrine of individualism and ‘intellectual autonomy.’ Somehow Christian fundamentalists feel justified in claiming that the concept of man’s individual rights finds its source in the Christian moral code (which amounts to a list of arbitrary commandments, duties and injunctions) and its political implications as outlined by biblical scripture. How this is argued is unknown, for there is no allowance for man’s rights anywhere in the pages of the 66 books of the Protestant Bible; in fact, its moral premises stand in complete contradiction to the doctrine of individual rights. The contentions against the individualism of Objectivism as illustrated by the author of the indictment under present discussion only confirm this fact.

Now for a few statements that Ayn Rand offered in defense of the her doctrine of individualism and individual rights, and their moral justification:

So, as you can see, the picture looks a lot different when it is informed by direct citations from Miss Rand herself. Rand’s philosophy has had no shortage of critics; however, just as the author of this indictment proceeds, its critics don’t seem to be able to address the philosophy as Rand identified it, nor do they seem able to avoid erecting straw man arguments in order to accomplish their criticism. For a start, it would be helpful for any would-be critic first at the very least to become familiar with the philosophy of Objectivism before setting out to challenge it. The author of this indictment has exhibited no understanding whatsoever of what Objectivism does say thus far.

Moving on, we encounter the following statement:

philosophy reduces to anarchy."

Here the author declares his devious intentions quite explicitly. The only way one can achieve the end this author places before himself and his ilk is through ignoring that for which Ayn Rand explicitly argued, and erecting straw man arguments to misrepresent her philosophy. The question that comes to mind is, simply: Why? Why would someone want to launch such an attack on Rand’s rational philosophy? And why would any critic of Rand’s philosophy also not base his assertions on what the philosophy actually advocates, rather than blatantly arguing against doctrines that are neither part of nor remotely resembling the Objectivist position? Certainly the author should have some access to Rand’s writings, either from bookstores or via the internet. Surprisingly, however, the author chooses to inform his indictment through a series of unsupported statements, non sequiturs and straw man arguments, while never once citing any primary Objectivist source to demonstrate the relevance of these assertions. This is pure dishonesty in its most ignominious form.

"Show that "pure" reason cannot exist, assuming naturalism, (unless physical contradictions are possible :)."

Again, this statement only confirms the author’s intention to proceed on the basis of erecting nothing more than a straw man argument in his attack against Objectivism. At no point, as indicated above, does Objectivism identify any distinct form of knowledge gathering or validation which it terms ‘pure’ reason, as opposed to some other kind of reason. The author does not make any effort to show any connection of this alleged ‘pure’ reason with any Objectivist literature whatsoever, nor does this author define what he means by ‘pure’ reason. If this is the intention of the author – to show that Objectivism is wrong by demonstrating the invalidity of incorrect doctrines such as ‘pure’ reason and naturalism, the only thing this author achieves is the successful demonstration of the fact that he definitely has no familiarity with his subject matter. If this is the best that transcendental theologians can throw at Objectivism, then Objectivists certainly have no cause for concern.

Furthermore, in response to this individual’s parenthetical aside, just what "physical contradictions" must be shown to be possible in order to debunk his straw man arguments thus far? Again, more non sequiturs that are no doubt interpreted by ‘presuppositionalist’ Christians as victorious jousts against a ‘rival worldview’.

"And that what is "right" and "wrong" in the end, is what the ones in power (the majority or dictator) says

"right" and "wrong" is."

Again, if the author believes he is dealing with Objectivist theories of morality and politics, he is severely misinformed. These statements do not stem from the slightest familiarity with the philosophy of Objectivism in any sense. Amazingly, the author does not even try to hide his ignorance here.

"And that an individual cannot exist without his particular place in history."

"Knowledge reduces to heat (enthalpy) in the end."

One wonders at this point where the author of these statements gets his information, if at all he makes any effort to acquire any.

"If a government decrees that each individual has such-and-such obligations to the society, how can the objectivist demonstrate that a government does not have the right to "force" its individuals to pay taxes?"

For one thing, the Objectivist can identify the nature of a proper form of government - compatible with man’s nature, and the task of that government – to acknowledge and protect man’s individual rights. Again, Rand made hers philosophical position exceptionally clear on these matters, and far more clear than this author makes himself.

"They will only shout their presuppositions louder, hoping to persuade others by the loudness of their voices, but they cannot demonstrate why a government has no right to define the rights of the individuals."

Has this author read Ayn Rand’s book on her political philosophy Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and her treatise on morality The Virtue of Selfishness ? If this author is honestly seeking a genuine understanding of Objectivist positions on the matters he’s attempting to address in his polemic, he would do well to confer with these sources to begin with. It is obvious from his statements that he has not put out the slightest effort to investigate his subject matter, and speaks with no authority – let alone familiarity – on the subjects with which he deals.

"Just some thoughts out loud. I've held some lengthy emails with an objectivist, and

it was interesting how much they took ‘on faith.’"

If the author of this indictment has used a self-professed Objectivist as his source of knowledge on Objectivism, one should inquire as to the quality of that individual’s understanding of Rand’s philosophy, and his ability to expound on it. It may very well be the case that this individual himself was not very familiar with Objectivism, or may not have understood how to integrate its ideas. Next, one would have to look at the actual exchanges that took place between this self-professed Objectivist and the author of this polemic, to determine its substance and quality of covering even the most basic essentials of Objectivism, for they are conspicuously absent from the author’s point of reference. Then, one must also examine the author’s ability to understand what he may have been exposed to as far as the positions informed by Objectivism, in particular by its chief spokesmen, Ayn Rand herself, and her philosophical heir, Dr. Leonard Peikoff.

The author himself here suggests that he is given to hasty generalizations, for he states that he has "held some lengthy emails with an objectivist" [sic] – that is, with a single individual purported to advocate Objectivist ideas, but concludes, from exchanges with this single individual, that all Objectivists necessarily commit the same fallacies as those ascribed to this unnamed single individual (fallacies which the author simply identifies as taking things ‘on faith’). Again, these statements betray nothing but sheer ignorance of Rand’s philosophy.

"It's an adolescent synthesis of some themes from Locke and Aristotle, stitched together with an "impossibility of the contrary"-style argument intended to insulate its claims from telling criticism. Take down Locke, or Aristotle's view of abstractions, and Rand's construct dissolves as a modest bonus."

We already know the source of these comments is ill-informed at best. It is hard to take anything he has stated here seriously. I suggest that the author of this ill-fated and feeble indictment of Objectivism, the philosophy of Reason, either actually read something written by Ayn Rand (see my recommended sources for hints on this) and refrain from misrepresenting ‘rival worldviews’, or give up philosophizing altogether. The intellectual irresponsibility of this individual is indeed legendary.