 Tonight we will discuss the philosophy of Nietzscheism and its relationship to the philosophy of Objectivism. For this tonight our Alan Gotthel, a graduate student of philosophy at Columbia University, and Jerry Goodman, a student at Columbia University School of Engineering. Ms. Rand, is there any basic difference between the philosophy of Nietzscheism and the philosophy of Objectivism? I would say practically a total basic difference. I'm very anxious to separate Objectivism from Nietzsche altogether. The reason for the mistaken rapprochement that some people hold between my philosophy and that of Nietzsche is that Nietzsche has certain very attractive, very wise quotations that purport to uphold individualism with which one could agree out of context, but accepting his general feeling for individualism I would not consider Nietzsche an individualist and above all he is certainly not an abholder of reason. When you judge a philosophy you must always start by judging its fundamentals and in all fundamentals particularly metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. Objectivism not only differs from Nietzsche but is its opposite, his opposite. Therefore I do not want to be confused with Nietzsche in any respect. Mr. Gotthel, let's get into Nietzsche's philosophy and see precisely what it is he is saying and why Objectivism disagrees. Now Nietzsche we know was a German philosopher who lived between 1844 and 1900 and was in the German romantic tradition. Now what Nietzsche himself advocated as a disciple of Schopenhauer and adding his own features, war we know of course, that reality in essence is a will, the will to power. Now he never made very clear what that means except that it is manifested in all natural things and therefore every action in the world is to be seen as the action of that entity willing for power. Now he then went on to say that man's reason is not what gets at reality but man's will therefore. He further went on to say that as to what the content of this will is, well it is determined for each man. In ethics he said that there really is no rational standard of value but if there is to be a standard at all then the good would be the realization of this will to power and that those men who were born with a certain kind of will, the men he called the Superman would then will in effect would will anything, whatever came to their mind it seems and they would go about their life and the good would be the willing for power and in the process what the effects of this on other people would be had no bearing on the act being good or not. Now could you briefly run through Objectivism's view on metaphysics, on human nature, on epistemology and on ethics just of course we can't go into it in detail certainly in a half an hour program but statements which would state clearly where Objectivism disagrees on each of these four issues. Well I would say on all of these four issues to begin with the idea that reality consists of a will that predicts everything about Objectivist epistemology and the Objectivist method that is you do not start with wide undefined floating abstractions devoid of any rationally defensible or demonstrable meaning. The idea of a will representing reality is just as bad and of the same order as the idea of any philosophical idealist who claims that reality consists of an idea not somebody's idea but just an idea and Schopenhauer's Nietzsche will belongs in the same category this is why I regard Nietzsche philosophically as a mystic because reality to him is not real he does not recognize the objectivity of reality he is a subjectivist to that extent to begin with as you correctly presented if the ultimate reality is a will then it means the subjective will or in fact the whim of any particular individual that's metaphysically epistemologically Nietzsche did believe that a reason is not valid he's contradicted himself many times on this subject in some respects he allowed certain lesser role to reason as most Platonists do but in this respect his most revealing book is the one called the birth of tragedy which introduces two principles the principle of Apollo and of Dionysius as he calls it the principle of Apollo is reason which he regards as all contributing certain values and of some importance but really secondary and subsidiary as all mystics regard reason Dionysius is the symbol or principle of some kind of innate non-rational power which may be whim, emotion, will or anything you wish to call it but which is apart from and superior to reason and he specifically stated that the Superman would be the man who lives by or functions under the Dionysius principle not the Apollo principle now that is the exact opposite of objectivism which holds that reason is man's only tool of knowledge his only tool of values and that reason is the only faculty of man which should guide him in his actions and in his perception of reality that is his only tool there is no other this is in regard to Nietzsche's epistemology now the way he saw man as you stated correctly he believes that men are born with certain innate ideas, characteristics or dispositions that some are born to be Superman and other are born to be slaves now he meant again the issue of slaves he never made it very clear whether he meant it literally and politically or metaphysically in the sense of an inferior class of beings and here he is guilty of many contradictions on the one hand he was opposed to political dictatorship or the political state on the other hand he claimed that the so-called slave or inferior men are the natural prey for the Superman and that these issues to who belongs where is totally non-objective and deterministic you are born one way or the other and you're just then in effect an automaton working out his predestined path now that's the exact opposite of objectivism which holds that man is born tabular rather that he does not inherit any ideas or any values at birth that he has to develop his own character his own values and his own ideas and knowledge he has to acquire it by a volitional action of his own mind that man's mind which is a volitional faculty is the tool which establishes not only man's survival and his action against inanimate matter but also determines and creates his own soul that is his by soul I mean consciousness his own values he is not born a Superman or an inferior man he is born a tabular rather and he thereafter creates his own character he's a being of self made soul as we would call it now what was the last point you made or does this cover your question on ethics Nietzsche's principle that the man oh yes now yes I remember thank you in on ethics Nietzsche believed that your own whim mind you're not your rational self interest but your own desire is the soul standard of the good and that the good is thoroughly subjective it's whichever your will happens to choose whichever it is whereas objectivism holds of course that morality is the province of reason that an objective rational code of morality can and must be established and that men cannot live successfully by the guidance of anything other than a code of rationally established and demonstrated objective moral values applicable to all men Mr. Goodman in your books your heroes are such as John Gould, Hank Greedon and Howard Rourke these are all superior people this has led to the confusion of your philosophy with that of Nietzschean concept of the uber man would you comment upon the differences well yes certainly because here it's an equivocation on the word superior if you mean superior in the sense of excellence and superior is a bad word to use here if you mean that some men excel are better than other men by a means of a self developed self made virtue that is a different thing entirely than Nietzsche's concept which divided men in effect into two species you see the word superior is more applicable to Nietzsche's philosophy it is a word which we never use and I never describe my heroes as superior men I describe them as ideal men which is a different concept entirely now in Nietzsche's concept a man is superior or inferior by birth it has nothing to do with morality he is born one way or the other now if men are determined to be something by birth this places the whole issue outside the province of morality you can neither take credit nor blame for an issue in which you have no choice morality pertains only to those aspects of existence in which man has a choice now objectivism holds that man is a being of self made soul meaning that he has the choice to create his own virtue or vice not superiority and inferiority but excellence, efficacy or incompetence, weakness, evasion all of which are within the province of man's choice and are determined by him not by any kind of innate determinism the difference there is enormous but it is only a superficial kind of mentality which would say since you admit that there is such a thing as some men who are better some respect than others you are there for in the same category philosophically as Nietzsche who believes that men are divided into two different species you can see that Nietzsche and objectivists in this respect stand at opposite poles philosophically and do not agree, do not belong in the same category Ms. Ryan it's often said that if a man is truly superior why should he follow the same moral codes as the inferior people have to follow because again we do not define clearly here the term superior and inferior a moral code has to be based on man's nature men do belong to the same species they are the same kind of living being and therefore any moral code to be objective has to be applicable to that which constitutes the essence of the nature of the entity for whom that code is intended a code which contradicts man's nature is impossible for him to practice and certainly altruism is an arch example of that kind of code rationally a code of morality has to be based on the nature of the being for whose guidance it is intended since men are all examples of the same species their fundamental rules of conduct that which is common to all of them and applies to all of them will have to be the same if some men are better than others certain talents or in certain achievements this is merely a matter of degree it is a difference of degree not of kind therefore you couldn't have different rules for so-called superior men or inferior men to begin with those terms have to be defined and if they are defined in terms of innate ability or acquired moral character in both cases the basic rules will have to be the same for all men since they are based on the fundamentals of man's nature not on the degrees of their achievement or of their virtue no morality will the proper morality will consist of concrete narrow specific rules every morality consists of wide basic principles therefore they use the application of those principles which a better man or a lesser man will make will differ according to the nature of their own moral status or their own ability that's the application the degree will differ not the basic principle which will in logic have to be the same for all Mr. God Health Mr. Ron would you agree that there is an effect inherent contradiction in the last question if the question meant superior in terms of moral excellence then a man is superior only to the extent to which he follows a certain moral code so then to ask of course that's a very good observation there is a contradiction in the question Mr. Goodman Ms. Ran what is the basic reason for action in the objectivist philosophy as compared to the powerless drive of Nietzsche would you say that again please excuse me what is the basic reason for action for human action in the objectivist philosophy as compared to the powerless drive in Nietzsche the basic reason for action in the objectivist philosophy is man's nature the fact that by his nature he has to create and acquire everything that he needs to sustain or expand his own life that nothing is given to man on earth neither material values nor intellectual values everything he needs or wants has to be produced and discovered by him and that is his basic impetus or motivation for action in Nietzsche philosophy is this mystical and defined concept of will without any definition of what that will is nor what it is to achieve it is a mystical package deal incidentally you know this is why existentialists which are the leading mystical philosophy of today classify Nietzsche as one of their ancestors and there's quite a great deal of ground for adopting him by the existentialists they are right in doing that he does belong in their categories and also you know advocate commitment to some kind of values for no reason but an arbitrary choice of the individual Mr. Gotthel Nietzsche's concept of the power seeker includes in it the idea which is glorified along with the power seeker being glorified that the power seeker and specifically the power seeker over man is also the independent self sufficient man now in your writings you have said in Howard Rock's speech in the fountain head rulers of men are not egoists they create nothing they exist entirely through the persons of others this being the case you must see a contradiction in Nietzsche's concept of a power seeker being an independent man would you comment further on that please of course to begin with I quite agree with the conclusion you have drawn in Rork's speech I was making the clear distinction between the proper kind of power if you wish to call it that that man should seek which is power over nature that means knowledge efficacy productive ability which can be called power but I made very clear that the parasite the dependent man is the one who unable to face nature to rely on his own judgment and create his values himself tries to seek his survival by means of an enslaving other men therefore the parasite is the most dependent of all men he has to exist by means of the productive or intellectual activity of others he has to impose quote his will on them in order to survive if you analyze the exact essence of what a power luster is that is a man who seeks power over nature you would see that from every aspect of his activity he is necessarily a parasite his the center of his activity and concern is other men the maintenance of his power over them forcing them to do his will he is not concerned with reality nor with nature he is concerned with other men he is as much of a parasite as the altruist who sacrifice himself to others to serve others or to rule them belongs in the same category because in both cases the man who seeks this kind of service or power is making other men the primary concern of his life whereas morally the primary concern should be the conquest of nature the acquisition of knowledge and productive activity which a man has to exercise on his own and not by means of or through the conquest of others therefore the objectivist position would tell you that to seek power over others is one of the worst most evil forms of parasitism from being the province of a superior man or a hero it is the province of an inferior man or a coward who dreads the responsibility of standing on his own judgment Mr. Fox Miss Rand you have mentioned on other occasions other occasions that there are two basic schools of philosophy the Platonic and Aristotelian since these two are so basic I was wondering if you could give the metaphysical connection between Nietzsche's philosophy and with Plato and objectivism with Aristotle's philosophy well this distinction applies mainly to the philosopher's view of metaphysics and epistemology that is of reality and of man's means for perceiving reality Plato held that there are in fact two realities and the one which we perceive is only an illusion or an imperfect reflection of a superior kind of reality the world of forms and ideals as he called them and that what our reason perceives is only this imperfect reality whereas we perceive the higher reality by means of a feeling or a sudden inspiration which comes to us in effect after we have exhausted the possibilities of reason a higher mystical illumination is our means of perceiving that higher real reality this in very simplified form is the essence of Plato well observes it that is what Nietzsche believed that reality is only a will there are no objective rules and that what the will his will man's will or just this depersonalized will chooses is what constitutes or makes reality to that extent you see he is a pure Platonist or I don't think he would ever call himself that he is strictly in the Platonic tradition of denying the validity of the reality we perceive denying the validity of reason as man's tool of knowledge and ascribing epistemological power to man's feelings to undefined inspiration or revelation which perceives some undefined form of higher reality now Aristotle held that there is only one reality the one which we perceive and that reason is man's tool for perceiving it that is exactly what objectivism holds in metaphysics and in epistemology that there are no other dimensions there is only the one universe and we have the capacity of perceiving it the tool by means of which we perceive it is man's mind and the mind is the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses that fundamentally is a strictly Aristotelian approach Mr. Godhouse one quick question before another one on Nietzsche would objectivism agree with Aristotle's metaphysics and epistemology in effect down the line you mean with the total of it no most certainly not particularly not with Aristotle's metaphysics when he constructed the universe including an immovable mover directing all motion etc no we would not agree with his metaphysics but we agree with his basic approach to metaphysics the fact that only this world exists and that everything that exists is a particular that it is concrete that abstractions forms as such do not exist Mr. Godhouse question on Nietzsche as much as I'd love to discuss Aristotle one of the things which led Nietzsche to his power secret or Superman theory was the fact that he observed constant conflicts in the world conflicts both on the animal level and there he appealed to Darwin's theory of evolution conflicts on the physical level and his examples would be the equivalent of the ocean rushes up against the shore though I don't know if he ever used that one and with respect to men he said it's quite clear that there are constant conflicts of interest among men now yet in Atlas shrug John Gould states there are no victims and no conflicts of interest among rational men men who do not desire the unearned and do not view one another with the cannibals lust men who neither make sacrifices nor accept them would you elaborate on that distinction between objectivism and Nietzsche I would say that Nietzsche's position here like so much about his philosophy is pure metaphor I mean to observe conflict is in nature is a very loose generalization and does not prove anything yet about what is proper for men nor does it elevate the nature of the conflict if you call it that inter metaphysical principle by which men should be guided it is strictly poetic license and metaphor which is very dangerous in philosophy now objectivism calls it there are no conflict of interest among men for the very reason you have just stated add to it what I said earlier since men has to maintain his life and achieve all his values by his own effort since there is no other way for men to acquire values men does not fight over a given static amount of food or luxuries that exist in nature he has to create everything that he needs or wants precisely for that reason there can be no conflict of interest among rational men if they all are on the premise that each has to achieve his own values each has to pursue his own goals never regarding others as the means to his own ends that was granting the same moral principle to others if he grants that as he has to achieve his own goals himself so do every so do all other men he will then deal with others only as a trader by mutual exchange he wants to cooperate he will deal only with those who wish to cooperate with him always remembering that each has to pursue his own interest which cannot be acquired at the expense of others that others are not there to serve one's own purposes and one is not there to be a sacrificial animal for others it is in this sense that you would have perfect cooperation and a non sacrificial society among men Mr. Goodman. Ms. Rand, most philosophies have a utopian goal of society such as Plato's Republic. Is there any objectivist utopian society? Well I wouldn't like to use that term because Plato's Republic incidentally is the arch type of all totalitarian states the first one on record and every single one since then has borrowed from Plato and where the other if you want to use the term utopia loosely not philosophically I would suggest that you read Atlas Shrugged in which I present what you might call a utopia that is the ideal free society and I entitle one of my chapters the utopia of greed deliberately as a challenge to the whole tradition of Platonist utopians who think that the ideal society consists of a regimented self sacrificial altruist herd of men. I show you in Atlas Shrugged what an ideal society of free independent men would be like. A short question now Mr. Gottheld. Then would you say that the basic distinction between objectivism and Nietzsche would lie in the role of reason in Nietzsche's outlook on life, his entire philosophy of life and the role of reason in objectivism's philosophy of life? Yes I would say that's the crucial distinction. Thank you gentlemen and thank you Mr. Rand. Tonight we have been discussing the philosophy of Nietzscheism and how it differs from the philosophy of objectivism. With me on the panel tonight were Alan Gottheld and Jerry Goodman. Mr. Rand, thank you again.