Now that the basic foundation of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism has been presented, it’s time to examine the potential similarities between that philosophy’s argument and the written work of Ralph Waldo Emerson. In particular, I will be focusing on a close reading of his essay Self-Reliance (1841). Again, like the post on Ayn Rand, I will begin with some contextual biographical information before describing and evaluating his work and its similarities to Rand’s. Before I continue I wish to reiterate that the purpose of this writing is not to insinuate that the total philosophies of Rand and Emerson are the same. The point is not to evaluate all of Objectivism and transcendentalism but rather to use a basic understanding of Objectivism as a lens through which to view specific works and make connections.

Emerson in 1857

Ralph Waldo Emerson was an American essayist, philosopher and lecturer born in 1803 in Boston, Massachusetts. Coming from a religious family, he was eventually ordained in the Unitarian church after graduating from Harvard (“Ralph Waldo Emerson”). However, Emerson later began to question his faith and eventually renounced his Christian doctrine altogether and resigned from the church (“Ralph Waldo Emerson”). Like Rand, Emerson came to the school of philosophy that would eventually become synonymous with his name, transcendentalism, through literature, specifically a personal manifesto called Nature (1836) (“Ralph Waldo Emerson”).

Self-Reliance, an essay written by Emerson in 1841, could be viewed as a tribute to individualism. The author advises his readers to resist conformity and live life according to his own perception and understanding in service of no one but himself. The centrality of individualism in Emerson’s work indicates a clear connection between him and Rand. According to the former, “No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong is what is against it,” (Emerson 238).

In this passage, Emerson constructs an understanding of the world that is centered entirely around the individual. The only natural law an individual is bound to respect is that of his own nature, and there is no moral code or concrete understanding of what is good or bad that comes from outside that individual that he must observe. This line of thinking is strongly connected with Rand’s Objectivist notion of the morality of self-interest. Rand wrote, “Man — every man — is an end himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself,” (4). Both authors advocate a worldview focused almost entirely on the individual self.

Another claim that binds Emerson and Rand is their understanding of the relationship between perception and reality. As previously mentioned, Rand’s Objectivism views perception as man’s only true source of knowledge and, therefore, a crucial part of his understanding of reality. Similarly, Emerson wrote of the supremacy of perception in Self-Reliance:

Thoughtless people contradict as readily the statement of perceptions as of of opinions, or rather much more readily; for, they do distinguish between perception and notion. They fancy that I choose to see this or that thing. But perception is not whimsical, but fatal. If I see a trait, my children will see it after me, and in course of time, all mankind, — although it may chance that no one has seen it before me. For my perception of it is as much a fact as the sun. (244)

Like Rand, he wrote of perception not as a subjective interpretation of reality, but as reality itself according to the law of the individual.

Works Cited:

Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “Ralph Waldo Emerson.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 21 May 2018, www.britannica.com/biography/Ralph-Waldo-Emerson.

Emerson, Ralph Waldo. “Self-Reliance.” The Norton Anthology of American Literature, 9th ed. Robert S. Levine, editor. W. W. Norton, 2017. pp. 236-53.

Rand, Ayn. The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought. NAL, 1988.

I will begin my analysis and comparison of Emerson and Rand’s writings by introducing Ayn Rand the individual as well as the philosophy she developed, known as Objectivism. While there will be a few biographic details provided for context, my purpose is more to define and explore Rand’s claims and worldview than to provide a linear narrative for her life.

Philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand was born in Russia in 1905 and first traveled to the United States as a young adult, after the Bolshevik revolution. Rand deeply resented Soviet communism and quickly took to life in America, finding a husband and career success as a screenwriter before becoming a full-fledged citizen in 1931 (Duignan, “Ayn Rand”).

Rand first began to probe into philosophical questions through her work as a novelist, specifically her two most well-known works, The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957). Both novels feature main characters who are staunch individualist entrepreneurs, eschewing conformity in favor of absolute creativity in service of the individual. The traits that make up the substance of these characters (individualism, entrepreneurship, selfishness) will later be developed and integrated with other ideas to create a coherent philosophical system that would come to be known as Objectivism.

Cover art for Rand’s Atlas Shrugged

But the items listed above are only a few pieces of the complex puzzle that make up the Objectivist philosophy, though they are deeply relevant to its main tenets, which Rand herself describes in The Voice of Reason (1988):

1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality

2. Epistemology: Reason

3. Ethics: Self-interest

4. Politics: Capitalism. (3)

According to the narrative supported by these foundational ideas, reality is absolute and is determined by concrete facts. Reason consists of information gleaned and processed through man’s senses; it is the only way for man to perceive reality (Rand 4). Additionally, the moral purpose for man’s life is to serve his own interests; man is not meant to live for others, but only for himself. In this philosophy that prioritizes the interests of the individual, the morality of “altruism” or the selfless concern for the well-being of others, is abhorred. And finally, in an ideal Objectivist world, government would be minimal and its primary purpose would be to protect individual rights. A laissez-faire capitalist economic system would allow men to work with one another through a “free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit,” (Rand 4).

The Objectivist approach to government, individualism, perception and reason in particular piqued my interest in terms of their possible relation to the work of Ralph Waldo Emerson, and the following posts will delve deeper into evaluating those connections.

Works cited:

Duignan, Brian. “Ayn Rand.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 27 Feb. 2018, www.britannica.com/biography/Ayn-Rand.

Rand, Ayn. The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought. NAL, 1988.

Upon reading work by Ralph Waldo Emerson for English 152W, I was struck with a feeling of déjà vu; many of his claims and basic philosophical tenets felt like something I had heard somewhere before, but not from this particular author nor any of his transcendentalist contemporaries. The writer and philosopher I was thinking of was Ayn Rand, novelist and founder of the philosophy known as Objectivism.

After making this connection, I quickly realized that I wanted to explore it further. Which specific ideas and claims from the author reminded me of Rand’s philosophy, and why? These are the questions I hope to answer over a series of posts on this blog.

Before I dig in to the texts that I believe connect these two authors, I feel it important to make a quick disclaimer. The purpose of my analysis is not to claim that the philosophies of Emerson and Rand are exactly the same; there are clear structural differences in their approaches and worldviews. However, this does not mean that they have nothing in common. Instead of making broad claims about the sameness of their philosophies, I am interested in exploring specific issues and claims represented in their work in order to infer and describe connecting themes and ideas. Specifically, I will be exploring the authors’ understandings of individualism, reason, perception, and solitude.