Friedrich Nietzsche and Ayn Rand

Post Reply New Topic

I have heard a lot of people talk about Friedrich Nietzsche and his connection to fascism, but I rarely hear people talk about his connection to Ayn Rand and Objectivism, so that’s what this thread is about.
I have read that Ayn Rand read Nietzsche. Here are some Nietzsche quotes that seem to support the idea that Ayn Rand took inspiration from him in creating Objectivism.

“When power becomes gracious and descends into the visible — such descent I call beauty. And there is nobody from whom I want beauty as much as from you who are powerful: let your kindness be your final self-conquest.”

"’Dead are all gods: now we want the overman to live’ — on that great noon, let this be our last will.”

“The sick are the greatest danger for the healthy; it is not from the strongest that harm comes to the strong, but from the weakest.”

“Liberal institutions cease to be liberal as soon as they are attained: later on, there are no worse and no more thorough injurers of freedom than liberal institutions.”

“What follows, then? That one had better put on gloves before reading the New Testament. The presence of so much filth makes it very advisable.”

Nietzsche wanted the strongest men to use their strength to rise to power. Ayn Rand wanted the greatest men to become rich. I definitely see a connection.
Here is my question to all the objectivists here: have you read Nietzsche?

I would like to conclude with a quote for the non-Objectivists to enjoy.
“... and then I became an Objectivist Which was cured by meeting Ayn Rand, all you gotta do is meet her once and that’s enough to cure you. She was more dogmatic than all the popes of the twentieth century put together.”
-Robert Anton Wilson

Objectivism is not an innovative philosophy. It is simply a combination of old unoriginal ideas. Rand, the fauxlosopher, was deeply bigoted and appallingly intolerant. Essentially, "if you don't agree my philosophy 100% (even if you agree with it 95%), you are a morally depraved bum".

Her philosophy is difficult to accept as a whole, mainly because it is incoherent.

That's just one of several parts of her philosophy.

The tenet of not living to serve others and not making others live to serve you is not a new idea. In fact it is very old. Of course, we may accept that, but that does not make the rest of her philosophy correct.

Where her philosophy goes wrong is in politics. She's not in favor of limiting the government, like some of the conservative pundits that cite her works. She's in favor of starting the government anew. To her, it's black, white, everything, or nothing. Her philosophy of government is that it is necessary to protect its people from coercion, but at the same time it cannot coerce the people.

Essentially, Rand wants a government that can fund a military to secure people from coercion, but does not want the government to tax. So there is no way to pay for this military. Of course, Rand suggested that people could voluntarily fund the government, but, we must look at the reality: what happens when people do not voluntarily give enough money?

You can't eat your cake and have it also. You can't get something for nothing.