Ayn Rand: What Matters

Let me quote from Page 17 and Page 18 of Ayn Rand's book, The Virtue of Selfishness: "In a fundamental sense, stillness is the antithesis of life. Life can be kept in existence only by a constant process of self-sustaining action. The goal of that action, the ultimate value which, to be kept, must be gained through its every moment, is the organism's life."

 My response: Rand is an activist and recommends that to live is to be moving, striving, working, planning, performing, and it would seem that the human organism's life is best enjoyed, nourished and cherished with teleological aims being chased perpetually. I like this outlook. 

 Here Rand is explicit about the teleological ends being significant for humans: "An ultimate value is that final goal or end to which all lesser goals are the means--and it sets the standard by which all lesser goals are evaluated. An organism's life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, and that which threatens it is the evil. Without an ultimate goal or end, there can be no lesser goal or means: a series of means going off into an infinite progression toward a nonexistent end is a metaphysical and epistemological impossibility. It is only an ultimate goal, an end in itself, that makes the existence of values possible. Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action. Epistemologically, the concept of 'value' is genetically dependent upon and derived from the antecedent concept of 'life.' To speak of 'value' apart from 'life' is worse than a contradiction in terms. It is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible."

 My response: Our teleological aim is the standard by which all lesser goals are evaluated. To live is to run after that ultimate end, and that is good. To be thwarted in chasing that end, or to self-censor and self-restrict one's winning the race towards that end is to be evil or experience evil. Again, Rand's words here make more sense to me if that end is inferred to be the self-actualized that is unique and personal to everyone. One thing that I admire about Rand is her moral conviction. She is not one to mince words. She calls what is evil, evil and what is good, good. Now, such firm, clear language ordinarily clarifies semantical content. Occasionally it might be simplistic, or overreaching, but I feel that is not often the case with Rand. She ties together the worth of the ultimate goal that is the end in itself, that makes value possible, and value is recognized and earned as one enjoys and accrues it while existing in an admirable, satisfying way. I like how she weaves all of this together. This fits rather nicely within the framework of Mavellonialist self-actualization theory.