Perhaps it is fair to say that if there is one message Ayn Rand the theorist would have wanted to leave us it is, philosophy matters! The recent death of Ayn Rand provides the occasion for us to recall the importance of this message. In the heat of contemporary social and political debates we often forget to consider basic principles. The writings of Ayn Rand will always be with us as a reminder that pragmatism and expediency are ultimately self-defeating. And it is in this spirit of a concern for basic questions that we wish to briefly outline some of Rand's basic theses here.

We see three central themes in the philosophy of Ayn Rand: 1) The major metaphysical and epistemological tenets of Aristotelian realism are true—viz., reality exists and is what it is independent of our awareness of it, and yet it can be known by the human mind. 2) Self-actualization is the correct approach to ethics. There are appropriate goals for human beings to pursue, and these goals (with the appropriate means) are grounded in human nature. Values can be found in "facts" or the nature of things, thus making a doctrine of natural rights possible, and 3) The conflict between ancient and modern political philosophy over whether the state should promote freedom or virtue need not be a source of conflict. Virtue and liberty are inherently related, and laissez-faire capitalism is the only economic and political system that recognizes this intimate connection.

Rand argues for the first thesis in her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. Her basic purpose is to show that though knowledge requires that the content of our mind answer to what is actually "out there," the manner in which we come to know things (i.e., form concepts) may depend on certain cognitive processes peculiar to human nature. For example, concepts are "universals." My concept of "dog" (if correct) will apply universally to an indefinite number of dogs. Thus while only individual dogs exist in nature, the mind may hold the concept of "dog" as a universal. This view of knowledge and concepts is a version of what philosophers call the "moderate realist" tradition—a tradition initiated by Aristotle and perhaps most fully developed by Thomas Aquinas. (p. 67)

The main non-fiction work in which Rand argues for the second thesis is The Virtue of Selfishness. In that work, especially the essay "The Objectivist Ethics," Rand seeks to move ethics from the Kantian view in which ethics is a matter of duties to others to the Greek view of promoting well-being or self-actualization. She specifically rejects the tendency among ethicists to consider actions done for self as amoral. But Rand is just as insistent that self-interest is not a matter of what one feels like doing. Human nature sets the standards for what is in one's self-interest, and thus it is possible to do what one "wants" to do and still not act in one's own interest. This view of ethics places Rand squarely within the Aristotelian natural law tradition. (pp. 67-8)

But perhaps the most unique contribution Rand has made concerns showing the relationship between what we have called thesis two and thesis three. Rand argues that human excellence cannot be achieved without giving central importance to freedom of choice…. This is why liberty is the most important social/political value—it keeps the possibility of excellence open. Indeed Rand's theory of rights is simply a way to insure that freedom is protected. And her theory is a natural rights theory because the justification for these rights depends upon her naturalistic ethics. Thus moral excellence is achieved only through political freedom, making the dichotomy between freedom and virtue a false one.

Since the free market is not paternalistic, it allows for the achievement of human excellence. This is not utopianism, since freedom cannot, by the very fact that it is freedom, guarantee that all will act to achieve their fullest potential. But the free market society does provide some incentives to this end, since the individual himself suffers most from his errors. Moreover, known and yet to be discovered possibilities for achievement are not forcibly closed off. In this connection it is vitally important to realize a point made in her essay "What is Capitalism" contained in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal—the book in which much of this third thesis can be found. Rand's theory of excellence is thoroughly individualistic. Excellence should not be viewed in terms of what is excellent for some class or group, e.g., intellectuals, businessmen, artists, or whomever. The achievement of excellence must be considered in the context of an individual's own circumstances and conditions. Freedom guarantees that the possibility of excellence will be open to all as they are respectively able to understand and achieve it. (pp. 68-9)

The foregoing remarks indicate why Rand does not excessively exaggerate when she gives herself credit for understanding the moral basis for capitalism better than anyone else. Previous moral arguments were of the "necessary evil" variety We tolerate the "selfishness" of individuals under capitalism to gain all the economic benefits that would result. Apart from the fact that this view implies that there is no moral basis for capitalism, it shows an ignorance both of human nature and the complex motives people have when they consider alternatives….

In conclusion, it is worth noting that Rand is a thinker but not a professional academic. This has both advantages and disadvantages. One of the primary advantages is that she has not been held captive by many of the intellectual fashions that have swept philosophy during the twentieth century. It also means her writings are not jargonistic. One of the primary disadvantages is that she has not always bothered to work out all the details of her ideas in a way necessary to solidify her position. It is for this very reason that her thought needs professional attention. Nevertheless, Rand's philosophizing can be a source of knowledge as well as inspiration. Thus even though Rand is often rejected by professional academics and goes in and out of fashion among libertarians, it just might be that the very "stone which the builders rejected" could well be the "one to become the head of the corner." (p. 69)