Spring 2000 Cyberseminar in Objectivist Studies
Nietzsche and Objectivism

Unit Four: April 17 - May 14

Stephen Hicks' Introductory Essay
on the Relationship Between the Philosophies
of Friedrich Nietzsche and Ayn Rand

To: TOC Cyberseminar
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 7:52 AM
Subject: Cyberseminar: SH Pt 4 Intro: Nietzsche and Rand

Nietzsche and Rand

Stephen Hicks

In this final unit of the CyberSeminar, we turn our attention officially to the relationship between the philosophies of Friedrich Nietzsche and Ayn Rand. I sense that this is the moment most of us have been waiting for, so let the fray commence.

I would like to frame our discussion by isolating three questions:

1. The question of the extent of agreement: On how many issues do Nietzsche and Rand agree? And then: Of the issues upon which they agree, which are of fundamental significance and which of secondary or less significance?
2. The question of influence: In the areas of agreement, to what extent did Nietzsche influence Rand? Can we determine whether Rand was influenced on that issue by Nietzsche, or by some other thinker(s), or whether she arrived at that position independently?
3. The question of the early versus the mature Rand: Are there issues about which the early Rand agreed with Nietzsche but which the mature Rand did not? And then: Can we isolate when and why those changes occurred?

My contribution to the discussion will be focused upon the first question. To begin, I've constructed a table that compares Nietzsche's and Rand's views on 68 philosophical issues. The table covers the major issues in metaphysics, epistemology, human nature, ethics, and politics. The table also includes six other, philosophically-related issues of comparison.

After the table, I've added some comments on the significance of the tabulated results.

I have given references for Nietzsche's works; but I've assumed that we are all familiar enough with Rand's works to know where to look for her view on any given issue. In the references to Nietzsche's works, I've used the following abbreviations:

A Antichrist

BGE Beyond Good & Evil

D Dawn

EH Ecce Homo

GM Genealogy of Morals

GS Gay Science

HA Human All-too-Human

TI Twilight of the Idols

WP Will to Power

Z Thus Spake Zarathustra

Table: Comparing Nietzsche's and Rand's Philosophies

What does the table signify?

Let's start with a crude measure: a count of the number of issues on which they agree and disagree.

Of the 68 issues, I count 51 disagreements and 17 agreements between Nietzsche and Rand. That's a disagreement/agreement ratio of 3 to 1.

Of the 17 agreements, 11 of them are negative agreements, i.e., agreements that something is false or wrong -- e.g., that God does not exist, that values are not intrinsic, that Plato and Kant are not wonderful human beings.

That leaves 6 areas of positive agreement, i.e., agreements that something is right or true. Those six include three philosophical theses:

1. Philosophy is systematic.
2. Consciousness is functional/useful.
3. Morality is in the service of life.

And the six include three sense of life issues:

4. Exalted sense of human potential.
5. Engaged in a cosmic battle.
6. Struggle is good.

If we compare the agreements and disagreements by area of philosophy, then we get the following.

In metaphysics, Nietzsche and Rand agree on nothing except that God is dead and that consciousness is functional. They disagree on the priority of process, about identity, causality, teleology, and on a series of issues involving the extent to which (putting it in Objectivist terms) philosophers can do armchair science.

In epistemology, there is even less agreement between the two. Except for agreeing that philosophy is systematic and that intrinsicism is false, they disagree on everything from whether consciousness is identification, to the validity of sensation, concepts, logic, reason, and the universality of truth.

In human nature, there are no areas of agreement. (Though if we added traditional mind/body dualism to the table, then the two would agree that it's false.)

In ethics, there is significant agreement on two major issues: that morality should be in the service of life, and that altruism is anti-life. There are also substantial disagreements: about whether conflicts of interest are fundamental, about whether life is the standard of value, about whether power or happiness is the end, about whether sacrifice is good, about whether rationality is the primary virtue or even a virtue at all.

In politics, they agree that contemporary civilization has very significant problems, and that socialism and the welfare state are nauseating; but while Nietzsche has good things to say about aristocracy, slavery, and war and bad things to say about capitalism, Rand says the opposite.

Finally, they share the same exalted, heroic struggle sense of life -- although Nietzsche adds to that a strong dose of bloodthirstiness that we do not find in Rand, while Rand regularly adds a strong dose of anger that we do not find in Nietzsche.

Conclusion: Summarizing the key differences and similarities

My judgment is that the differences between Nietzsche and Rand greatly outweigh the similarities. They are both atheists, they both are naturalistic in their approach to consciousness and values, and they are both hostile to altruism. Yet they share very little positive philosophy: they disagree on virtually every fundamental issue in metaphysics, epistemology, and human nature; and they disagree about the proper positive standard, means, and end of ethics.

* * *

My post does not address the questions of Nietzsche's influence upon Rand or of the extent to which Rand later expunged earlier Nietzschean elements in her thinking. Please feel welcome to address those questions too.

* * *