The Journals of Ayn Rand (55 page)

9. There are, therefore, only two axioms to be accepted as self-evident in my morality: (1) man must survive, and (2) man must be happy. But both of these axioms impty—“as man.” Man’s survival and happiness are not automatically “human.” These two axioms apply only to man as a rational being. When man chooses to act in a sub-human manner, it is no longer proper for him to survive nor to be happy. There is no reason in fact by which he can claim these two rights as natural. He cannot survive at all, if he acts on another basis; if he cannot survive, he cannot have any happiness.

10. The rational faculty is individual. The only threat to its exercise lies in other men. The first demand of the rational faculty is
independence.

My three cornerstones:
man is an end in himself; no man exists for the sake of another man; each man exists for his own happiness (to be achieved by his own effort).

My chief virtues:
self-reverence (the sense of the heroic in man); self-sufficiency (independence, integrity, the capacity of happiness—which is self-contained and self-justifying); worship of the ideal (define your ideal, then live by it, work toward it, find your happiness in it—make your happiness be a response to man at his highest, not at his lowest).

People suffer because they are not appreciated—not because they get no alms. Alms, pity, and charity is precisely what they
don’t
want. But when their better qualities get no justice or appreciation, they lose faith in themselves, in men and, above all, in ideals. It is at this point that they turn cynical and vicious.

But before you can get appreciated—ask yourself: “For what?” You cannot be appreciated for a potentiality you have not exhibited. Act, before you demand any appreciation from others; give them objective evidence of what it is you want them to like and admire in you; be sure you have objective (rational) standards for your achievements.
(This
is an example of the fact that the rational is the only bond possible between men, and the only standard in all their relationships.)

 

 

By proclaiming his willingness to sacrifice himself, man acquires the right to sacrifice others. If it is asked: but is self-sacrifice easy?—it is the easiest thing in the world for the man who has no self. First, he makes a virtue of his one most dreadful deficiency. Second, his desire to destroy others is his most burning desire—once he has dropped his own self-respect.
The man who does not respect himself can have no love or respect for others.

In practice, the actual satisfaction of all dictators is to command, humble, humiliate, hurt others (which means precisely to
sacrifice
others). What enjoyment except this one can a dictator have when he lives in debauched animal luxury and in constant fear, hatred, suspicion of even his closest friends? Not love, but
sacrifice
of men becomes his only desire in relation to them.

If a man bases his values on brute force—he is saying to himself, in effect: “This method cannot keep me alive, but I can make it work by enslaving those who can keep me alive.” Then he must realize that the method he’s chosen as proper to him is not the one proper to those who must keep him alive. Then his code of values will destroy them—and when they are destroyed, he will perish; thus he has destroyed himself. So he cannot claim that his method and his code of values are based on man’s survival, not even on his own. It is based on man’s destruction—because it is not human and cannot work for man.

If men claim that the rational faculty is an innate gift (which it is, or rather its power is, just as the degree of any physical talent varies from birth) and, therefore, a man cannot be blamed if he is born with a mental capacity insufficient for his survival, and he cannot make it the standard of his survival—the answer is that he has no choice except to exercise his mind to the full extent of his capacity—and let the overflow of the better minds of others help him (which it does, but
not
at his demand). He cannot impose his need as a standard of value upon his betters, i.e., upon those who have to help him survive. If he has no capacity of survival, then it is precisely his
self-interest
, his desire to survive, that must make him accept the standards and values of those on whom his survival depends.

A parasite (in the physical world) destroys that upon which it feeds—like a virus that attaches itself to a living cell and kills it. Man has to destroy himself if he lives as a parasite upon the work and souls of other men. Yet altruism has made him just that. No other species exists as a parasite upon itself. Man does. (There is a difference here, though: an animal destroys his food, in the sense of killing another creature. But he does not try to exist by destroying his fangs, horns, or whatever is his tool of survival. A human parasite does just that: he destroys his tool—the human brain. That is why he can be defined as a creature unfit for existence—an embodied death principle—the actual evil.)

A crucial issue exists between the conception of “self-as-is” and “self” as a rational free agent. For instance, it is considered noble to have an “impersonal” attitude toward knowledge. It is implied that a
personal
attitude would be, not the desire to know the truth, but the desire to gain some advantage. Yet it is only the most
personal
,
independent
element of a man—his rational faculty—that is capable of acquiring knowledge. Truth, therefore, is presumed to be somehow detrimental to a man’s interests. By what, then, does he establish his interests?

If men feel: “I’ve got to live such as I am, on the basis of my flaws,” the answer is: “You can’t live on the basis of your flaws. Such as you are, you can live only on the basis of your virtues.” Here the idea of “getting by” enters.

The “individual,” the “subjective,” has always been held to be the irrational. Yet it is only objective reality and the tool that masters it—the rational faculty—that permit man any individuality at all. And for man, objective reality demands
individualism.

The “subjective” school says, in effect: “I yam what I yam and that’s all I yam.” The answer is: “Fine. But what are you?” They say: “I am born or conditioned or determined this way—and therefore I can’t be blamed for it, I’m not bad, therefore I’m good—as is and whatever it is.” The answer is: “You are neither good nor bad. You are nothing at all. If you are a ‘determined’ creature—no conceptions of morality, nor even of values, can apply to you. Nature has not given you any values automatically—nor can you define them to yourself or to others. You may try to exist by whatever it is you claim is your code of values. When you come to dealing with the physical world—in order to satisfy your instincts, hunches, or condition ings—you’ll see what will happen to you. You don’t know what you want nor why you want it. How do you expect to get it?” (To
want
anything, one must have a standard of values.)