A Critical Examination of the Objectivist Metaphysic

Objectivism is Committed to the Following Propositions about Entities:

• Entities are the only existents that are independently existing, metaphysical primaries (i.e., self-contained existents).
• Entities are the only existents that are causally efficacious. 
• Entities are the only existents that perform actions: all actions are actions performed by entities.
• Parts of entities are themselves entities.

Objectivism is Committed to the Following Propositions about Attributes of Entities:

• An attribute of an entity is an existent that is not an independently existing, metaphysical primary (i.e., a self-contained existent). 
• An attribute of an entity is an existent that is possessed by something that is not the attribute itself. 
• Attributes are attributes of entities. 
• No one attribute is itself an entity: no single attribute constitutes one entity.

Objectivism is Committed to the Following Propositions about a Man’s Consciousness/Mind:

• A man’s consciousness/mind is an existent that is not an independently existing, metaphysical primary (i.e., a self-contained existent). 
• A man’s consciousness/mind is an attribute of an entity. 
• A man’s consciousness/mind is causally efficacious.
• A man’s consciousness/mind is an existent that performs actions.
• A man’s consciousness/mind is an existent that has attributes.
• A man’s consciousness/mind is an attribute which he, and he alone, possesses.
• A man’s consciousness/mind is his self; and a man’s self is his consciousness/mind.
• A man’s consciousness/mind is a faculty possessed by an entity. 

A Diagram of the Objectivist Metaphysical Categories of Entities, Parts of Entities, Attributes of Entities, and Actions of Entities:

Argument #1:

P1) Objectivism is committed to the position that all actions are actions performed by entities and only entities are causally efficacious.

P2) Objectivism is committed to the position that a man’s consciousness/mind performs actions and a man’s consciousness/mind is causally efficacious. 

C1) Therefore, Objectivism is committed to the position that a man’s consciousness/mind is an entity. [From P1 and P2] 

P3) However, Objectivism is committed to the position that a man’s consciousness/mind is not an entity. 

C2) Therefore, Objectivism is committed to the position that a man’s consciousness/mind both is, and is not, an entity. And this is a contradiction. [From C1 and P3]

Argument #2:

P1) Objectivism is committed to the position that all actions are actions performed by independently existing, metaphysical primaries (i.e., self-contained existents) and only independently existing, metaphysical primaries (i.e., self-contained existents) are causally efficacious.  

P2) Objectivism is committed to the position that a man’s consciousness/mind performs actions and a man’s consciousness/mind is causally efficacious. 

C1) Therefore, Objectivism is committed to the position that a man’s consciousness/mind is an independently existing, metaphysical primary (i.e., a self-contained existent). [From P1 and P2] 

P3) However, Objectivism is committed to the position that a man’s consciousness/mind is not an independently existing, metaphysical primary (i.e., a self-contained existent). 

C2) Therefore, Objectivism is committed to the position that a man’s consciousness/mind both is, and is not, an independently existing, metaphysical primary (i.e., a self-contained existent). And this is a contradiction. [From C1 and P3]

Argument #3:

P1) Objectivism is committed to the position that all actions are actions performed by entities and only entities are causally efficacious. 

P2) Objectivism is committed to the position that a man’s consciousness/mind is not an entity. 

C1) Therefore, Objectivism is committed to the position that a man’s consciousness/mind does not perform actions and a man’s consciousness/mind is not causally efficacious. [From P1 and P2] 

P3) However, Objectivism is committed to the position that a man’s consciousness/mind performs actions and a man’s consciousness/mind is causally efficacious. 

C2) Therefore, Objectivism is committed to the position that a man’s consciousness/mind both does, and does not, perform actions, and a man’s consciousness/mind is, and is not, causally efficacious. And this is a contradiction. [From C1 and P3]

Argument #4:

P1) Objectivism is committed to the position that I am my consciousness/mind. [This is the “is” of identity, not the “is” of predication]. 

P2) However, Objectivism is committed to the position that my consciousness/mind is not an independently existing, metaphysical primary (i.e., a self-contained existent). 

C1) Therefore, Objectivism is committed to the position that I am not an independently existing, metaphysical primary (i.e., a self-contained existent). [From P1 and P2] 

P3) However, Objectivism is committed to the position that all actions are actions performed by independently existing, metaphysical primaries (i.e., self-contained existents) and only independently existing, metaphysical primaries (i.e., self-contained existents) are causally efficacious. 

C3) Therefore, Objectivism is committed to the position that I do not perform actions and that I am not causally efficacious. [From C1 and P3] 

Argument #5:

P1) Objectivism is committed to the position that an attribute is always possessed by something that is not the attribute itself. 

P2) Objectivism is committed to the position that my consciousness/mind is an attribute which I, and I alone possess. 

C1) Therefore, Objectivism is committed to the position that I am not my consciousness/mind. [From P1 and P2] 

P3) However, Objectivism is committed to the position that I am my consciousness/mind. [This is the “is” of identity, not the “is” of predication].

C2) Therefore, Objectivism is committed to the position that I am, and I am not, my consciousness/mind. And this is a contradiction. [From C1 and P3]

Argument #6:

P1) Objectivism is committed to the position that an attribute is always possessed by something that is not the attribute itself. 

P2) Objectivism is committed to the position that my consciousness/mind is an attribute. 

C1) Therefore, Objectivism is committed to the position that my consciousness/mind is possessed by something that is not my consciousness/mind. [From P1 and P2] 

P3) Objectivism is committed to the position my consciousness/mind is an attribute which I, and I alone, possess. 

C2) Therefore, Objectivism is committed to the position that I am not my consciousness/mind. [From C1 and P3] 

P4) However, Objectivism is committed to the position that I am my consciousness/mind. [This is the “is” of identity, not the “is” of predication].

C3) Therefore, Objectivism is committed to the position that my consciousness/mind is possessed by something that is not me. And this is a contradiction. [From C2 and P4]

Argument #7:

P1) Objectivism is committed to the position that an attribute is always possessed by something that is not the attribute itself. 

P2) Objectivism is committed to the position that my consciousness/mind is an attribute. 

C1) Therefore, Objectivism is committed to the position that my consciousness/mind is possessed by something that is not my consciousness/mind. [From P1 and P2] 

P3) Objectivism is committed to the position my consciousness/mind is an attribute which I, and I alone, possess. 

C2) Therefore, Objectivism is committed to the position that I am not my consciousness/mind. [From C1 and P3] 

P4) However, Objectivism is committed to the position that I am my consciousness/mind. 

[This is the “is” of identity, not the “is” of predication].

C3) Therefore, Objectivism is committed to the position that my consciousness/mind is possessed by something that is not me. And this is a contradiction. [From C2 and P4] 

A Defense of Each Premise:

“Objectivism is committed to the position that all actions are actions performed by entities and only entities are causally efficacious.”

The proposition that “Objectivism is committed to the position that all actions are actions performed by entities and only entities are causally efficacious” is featured in Argument #1 as (P1), and in Argument #3 as (P1). Now, if the proposition, “All actions are actions performed by entities and only entities are causally efficacious,” is an accurate statement of a position that Objectivism is committed to, it follows that (P1) of Argument #1, and (P1) of Argument #3 are both true. The following passages (among many others) from Objectivist literature should be sufficient to establish that the proposition, “All actions are actions performed by entities and only entities are causally efficacious,” is an accurate statement of a position that Objectivism is committed to. It is also important to note that the proposition, “All actions are actions performed by entities and only entities are causally efficacious,” follows necessarily from the proposition that “Entities are the only existents that perform actions,” and “Entities are the only existents that are causally efficacious.”

“All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act; a thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature.” (For the New Intellectual (FNI), 152) 

“And—especially important in considering the law of cause and effect—there are no floating actions; there are only actions performed by entities….The adult validation of the law of causality consists in stating this relationship [“between the nature of an entity and its mode of action”] explicitly. The validation rests on two points: the fact that action is action of an entity; and the law of identity, A is A. Every entity has a nature; it is specific, noncontradictory, limited; it has certain attributes and no others. Such an entity must act in accordance with its nature. The only alternatives would be for an entity to act apart from its nature or against it; both of these are impossible. A thing cannot act apart from its nature, because existence is identity; apart from its nature, a thing is nothing. A thing cannot act against its nature, i.e., in contradiction to its identity, because A is A and contradictions are impossible. In any given set of circumstances, therefore, there is only one action possible to an entity, the action expressive of its identity. This is the action it will take, the action that is caused and necessitated by its nature….Cause and effect, therefore, is a universal law of reality. Every action has a cause (the cause is the nature of the entity which acts); and the same cause leads to the same effect (the same entity, under the same circumstances, will perform the same action)….Given the facts that action is action of entities, and that every entity has a nature—both of which facts are known simply by observation—it is self-evident that an entity must act in accordance with its nature.” (Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (OPAR), 13-16) 

“Action is the crux of the law of cause and effect: it is action that is caused—by entities. By the same token, the causal link does not relate two actions….Motions do not act, they are actions. It is entities which act—and cause. Speaking literally, it is not the motion of a billiard ball which produces effects; it is the billiard ball, the entity, which does so by a certain means.” (OPAR, 17-18) 

“The law of causality states that entities are the cause of actions—not that every entity, of whatever sort, has a cause, but that every action does; and not that the cause of action is action, but that the cause of action is entities.” (OPAR, 18)

“Entity, as we have seen, is the primary “category.” Only entities can act— and to be an entity is to be an individual.” (OPAR, 196)

“An existent is, then, a particular which exists….An existent is a concrete. “Existent” is a very convenient term in that it subsumes entities and attributes and actions and event mental events. They exist….Everything that exists on which you can focus, anything which you can isolate, whether it is an entity, a relationship, an action, or an attribute. The concept “existent” refers to something which exists. And it is wider than the concept “entity,” because it permits you to subsume under that concept, and focus on, attributes or relationships or actions—on that which depends on an entity but can be studied separately. (ITOE, 198-199)

“The first concepts man forms are concepts of entities—since entities are the only primary existents. (Attributes cannot exist by themselves, they are merely the characteristics of entities; motions are motions of entities; relationships are relationships among entities.)” (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (ITOE), 12) 

“And an action-concept cannot precede an entity-concept. He first has to conceptualize the objects—the entities—then, the kinds of action they can perform, or he can perform with them.” (ITOE, 210)  

“There are no attributes without entities, there are no actions without entities.” (ITOE, 264) 

“Attributes and actions cannot exist apart from the entity.” (ITOE, 265) 

“Actions are caused by entities…” (ITOE, 285) 

“By “action” we mean the action of an entity.” (ITOE, 291) 

“Objectivism is committed to the position that a man’s consciousness/mind performs actions and a man’s consciousness/mind is causally efficacious.”

The proposition that “Objectivism is committed to the position that a man’s consciousness/mind performs actions and a man’s consciousness/mind is causally efficacious” is featured in Argument #1 as (P2), in Argument #2 as (P2), and in Argument #3 as (P3). Now, if the proposition, “A man’s consciousness/mind performs actions and a man’s consciousness/mind is causally efficacious,” is an accurate statement of a position that Objectivism is committed to, it follows that (P2) of Argument #1, (P2) of Argument #2, and (P3) of Argument #3 are all true. The following passages (among many others) from Objectivist literature should be sufficient to establish that the proposition, “A man’s consciousness/mind performs actions and a man’s consciousness/mind is causally efficacious,” is an accurate statement of a position that Objectivism is committed to.

“It may be supposed that the concept “existent” is implicit even on the level of sensations—if and to the extent that a consciousness is able to discriminate on that level.” (ITOE, 6)

“Note that the concept “unit” involves an act of consciousness…it is not an arbitrary creation of consciousness: it is a method of identification or classification according to the attributes which a consciousness observes in reality.” (ITOE, 7) 

“[U]nits are things viewed by a consciousness in certain existing relationships.” (ITOE, 7) 

“In considering the nature of concepts and the process of abstracting from abstraction, we must assume a mind capable of performing (or of retracing and checking) that process.” (ITOE, 21) 

“It is only in relation to the external world that the various actions of a consciousness can be experienced, grasped, defined or communicated.” (ITOE, 29) 

“Just as, extrospectively, man can abstract attributes from entities—so, introspectively, he can abstract the action of his consciousness from its contents, and observe the differences among these various actions.” (ITOE, 30) 

“For instance (on the adult level), when a man sees a woman walking down the street, the action of his consciousness is perception; when he notes that she is beautiful, the action of his consciousness is evaluation, when he experiences an inner state of pleasure and approval, of admiration, the action of his consciousness is emotion; when he stops to watch her and draws conclusions, from the evidence, about her character, age, social position, etc., the action of his consciousness is thought; when, later, he recalls the incident, the action of his consciousness is reminiscence; when he projects that her appearance would be improved if her hair were blond rather than brown, and her dress were blue rather than red, the action of his consciousness is imagination.” (ITOE, 30) 

“He can also observe the similarities among the actions of his consciousness on various occasions, by observing the fact that these same actions—in different sequences, combinations and degrees—are, have been or can be applicable to other objects…” (ITOE, 30) 

“A special, separate act of consciousness is required to draw these [conceptual consequences]…” (ITOE, 159) 

“One’s own consciousness serves as the observer and the processes of consciousness as the observed, as the object which one observes an integrates.” (ITOE, 166) 

“Now, since it is an exact measurement, it presupposes a consciousness that is doing this.” (ITOE, 194)

“The CCD for all concepts of consciousness is: actions of consciousness. That is the common denominator.” (ITOE, 223) 

“Therefore, you could compare thought to an emotion by the process which your consciousness performs in either…” (ITOE, 223) 

“Will you tell me in your example which you classify as the content and which is the action of consciousness?...The action of consciousness is a consideration and a conclusion drawn…That is the action of your consciousness.” (ITOE, 226) 

“Now we are talking about the action of your consciousness, aren’t we?” (ITOE, 227) 

“It takes an act of consciousness to be aware of all this, and it’s I, my consciousness, that’s performing that act.” (ITOE, 255) 

“In time, the child’s consciousness can focus separately on such features, isolating them in thought for purposes of conceptual identification and specialized study.” (OPAR, 13) 

“Man’s first duty is not to others, but to himself. He can survive only through the functioning of his reasoning mind directed toward the conquest of nature.” (The Letters of Ayn Rand (LAR), 82) 

“I believe that our mind controls everything—yes, even our sex emotions. Perhaps the sex emotions more than anything else. Although that’s the opposite of what most people believe. Everything we do and are proceeds from our mind. Our mind can be made to control everything. The trouble is only that most of us don’t want our minds to control us—because it is not an easy job. So they drift and let chance and other people and their own subconscious decide for them. I believe firmly that everything in a man’s life is subject to his mind’s control—and that his greatest tragedies come from the fact that he willfully suspends that control.” (LAR, 156) 

“As to the word “spirituality,” I use it to denote all that which pertains to man’s consciousness, most particularly to his thinking (which is the base and essence of his consciousness). I do not know (nor care too greatly) whether man’s consciousness is a special spiritual element, different from the material, much as the religious conception of a soul—or whether it is only a function and manifestation of his physical body. I am concerned only with how this consciousness works, here, on earth, what it can do, what it should do, how it should live. Whether material or nonmaterial, a man’s consciousness (his spirit) is the essence of man and of his life, and it is (as you have often stated) a prime source of energy—spiritual (thinking) and physical energy, both. I am in complete agreement with you that anything we say about man and his life is valid only if we keep it in terms of this earth, of the physical world, of space and time. (Did I understand you correctly in this?) Man’s consciousness is a fact of this world, too, of course.” (LAR, 355-356) 

“When applied to physical phenomena, such as the automatic functions of an organism, the term “goal-directed” is not to be taken to mean “purposive” (a concept applicable only to the actions of a consciousness) and is not to imply the existence of any teleological principle operating in insentient nature.” (The Virtue of Selfishness (TVS), 13) 

“Yet his life depends on such knowledge—and only a volitional act of his consciousness, a process of thought, can provide it…Nothing is given to man on earth except a potential and the material on which to actualize it. The potential is a superlative machine: his consciousness; but it is a machine without a spark plug, a machine of which his own will has to be the spark plug, the self-starter and the driver; he has to discover how to use it and he has to keep it in constant action. The material is the whole of the universe, with no limits set to the knowledge he can acquire and to the enjoyment of life he can achieve. But everything he needs or desires has to be learned, discovered and produced by him—by his own choice, by his own effort, by his own mind.” (TVS, 18) 

“The proper function of consciousness is: perception, cognition, and the control of action. An unobstructed consciousness, an integrated consciousness, a thinking consciousness, is a healthy consciousness. A blocked consciousness, an evading consciousness, a consciousness torn by conflict and divided against itself, a consciousness disintegrated by fear or immobilized by depression, a consciousness dissociated from reality, is an unhealthy consciousness.” (TVS, 32) 

“Rand considers consciousness a natural, biological faculty, whose vital function is to gain awareness of the organism’s environment and direct its life‐sustaining actions within that environment. A healthy consciousness is one that is able to do this; it is efficacious. An unhealthy or diseased consciousness is one in which this ability has been undermined or incapacitated; it is inefficacious.” (Blackwell Companion to Ayn Rand (BCAR), 116) 

“Because self‐esteem is the most basic need of man’s consciousness, Rand argues that the exact nature and extent of a man’s self‐esteem will shape his particular values, their structure and motivational force in his mind, and the essence of what he seeks to obtain in life. An individual’s sense of his mind’s efficacy, and the metaphysical and moral standards by which he judges his self, shape the structure of his soul.” (BCAR, 118)

“There is only one fundamental issue in philosophy: the cognitive efficacy of man’s mind.” (“Aristotle,” The Objectivist Newsletter, May, 1963)

“Two fundamental attributes are involved in every state, aspect or function of man’s consciousness: content and action—the content of awareness, and the action of consciousness is regard to that content.” (ITOE, 29-30) 

“Every state of consciousness involves two fundamental attributes: the content (or object) of awareness, and the action (or process) of consciousness in regard to that content.” (ITOE, 84) 

“Every state of consciousness involves two fundamental attributes: the content (or object) of awareness, and the action (or process) of consciousness in regard to that content.” (“The Contradiction of Determinism,” The Objectivist Newsletter, January, 1967) 

“Objectivism is committed to the position that a man’s consciousness/mind is not an entity.”

The proposition that “Objectivism is committed to the position that a man’s consciousness/mind is not an entity” is featured in Argument #1 as (P3), and in Argument #3 as (P2). Now, if the proposition, “A man’s consciousness/mind is not an entity,” is an accurate statement of a position that Objectivism is committed to, it follows that (P3) of Argument #1 and (P2) of Argument #3 are both true. The following passages (among many others) from Objectivist literature should be sufficient to establish that the proposition, “A man’s consciousness/mind is not an entity,” is an accurate statement of a position that Objectivism is committed to. It is important to note that the proposition, “A man’s consciousness/mind is not an entity,” follows necessarily from the proposition that “A man’s consciousness/mind is an attribute of an entity,” and “A man’s consciousness/mind is a faculty possessed by an entity.”

Furthermore, it is essential to point out that the proposition, “Objectivism is committed to the position that a man’s consciousness/mind is not an entity,” is logically entailed by the proposition, “Objectivism is committed to the position that a man’s consciousness/mind is not an independently existing, metaphysical primary (i.e., a self-contained existent).” Likewise, the proposition, “Objectivism is committed to the position that a man’s consciousness/mind is not an entity,” is logically entailed by the proposition, “Objectivism is committed to the position that a man’s consciousness/mind is an attribute.” The proposition, “Objectivism is committed to the position that a man’s consciousness/mind is not an independently existing, metaphysical primary (i.e., a self-contained existent),” is featured in Argument #2 as (P3), and in Argument #4 as (P2); and the proposition, “Objectivism is committed to the position that a man’s consciousness/mind is an attribute,” is featured in Argument #5 as (P2), in Argument #6 as (P2), and in Argument #7 as (P2). Therefore, it follows that if either (P3) of Argument #2, or (P2) of Argument #4, or (P2) of Argument #5, or (P2) of Argument #6, or (P2) of Argument #7 is true, then (P3) of Argument #1 and (P2) of Argument #3 are true.

“Consciousness is an attribute of certain living entities, but it is not an attribute of a given state of awareness, it is that state.” (ITOE, 56) 

“Prof. F: Wouldn’t you say that consciousness is itself an attribute of man?...AR: Right, A faculty of man....What does one mean by “state of consciousness”? A state of a faculty possessed by an entity. Consciousness is not a primary object, it is not an independent existent, it’s an attribute of a certain kind of existents. You cannot project what you mean by a state of consciousness—neither by synonyms nor in any way—without referring to the person or the animal who possesses that consciousness: an entity of whom consciousness is a faculty. It is not possible to project it. Now why isn’t it possible? Because such a thing as a state of consciousness is obviously a derivative concept—derivative qua attribute. It’s a primary, as far as the conceptual chain is concerned, but in regard to observation, you have no way of experiencing or observing a state of consciousness without the entity which experiences it….The consciousness of self is implicit in [any grasp] of consciousness.” (ITOE, 216-217)

“Whether he has a soul or is a material being with the attribute of consciousness, in either case his distinctive, essential attribute is consciousness, not matter…” (The Journals of Ayn Rand (JAR), 13) 

“Man is a being endowed with consciousness—an attribute which matter does not possess.” (LAR, 463) 

“A man’s volition is outside the power of other men. What the unalterable basic constituents are to nature, the attribute of a volitional consciousness is to the entity “man”.” (Philosophy: Who Needs It (PWNI), 38) 

“Objectivity begins with the realization that man (including his every attribute and faculty, including his consciousness) is an entity of a specific nature who must act accordingly…” (ITOE, 82) 

“All questions presuppose that one has a faculty of knowledge, i.e., the attribute of consciousness. One ignorant of this attribute must perforce be ignorant of the whole field of cognition (and of philosophy).” (OPAR, 5) 

“Consciousness is an attribute of perceived entities here on earth.” (OPAR, 33)

“The method must reflect two factors: the facts of external reality and the nature of man's consciousness. It must reflect the first, because consciousness is not a self-contained entity; it is the faculty of perceiving that which exists. The method must reflect the second factor, because consciousness has identity; the mind is not blank receptivity; it is a certain kind of integrating mechanism, and it must act accordingly.” (OPAR, 117) 

“[Man] is, in Ayn Rand’s words, “an indivisible entity, an integrated unit of two attributes: of matter and consciousness.” Consciousness in his case takes the form of mind, i.e., a conceptual faculty; matter, of a certain kind of organic structure. Each of these attributes is indispensable to the other and to the total entity. The mind acquires knowledge and defines goals; the body translates these conclusions into action.” (OPAR, 196) 

“The same observations which reveal that consciousness is an attribute of certain living organisms reveal that it belongs to separate organisms.” (OPAR, 196) 

“It is one’s recognition of the fact that the mind is an attribute of the individual and that no person can think for another.” (OPAR, 255) 

“Since man is an integration of two attributes, mind and body, every virtue reflects this integration.” (OPAR, 257) 

“Integrity, the refusal to permit a breach between thought and action, presupposes an individual’s freedom in regard to both man’s attributes: mind and body.” (OPAR, 388) 

“Such is the harmony between mind and body attained in practice by a system that is based from the start on a correct view of these two attributes of man.” (OPAR, 401)

“Since consciousness is not an independent entity, it cannot attain fulfillment within its own domain.” (OPAR, 420)

“Objectivism is committed to the position that all actions are actions performed by independently existing, metaphysical primaries (i.e., self-contained existents) and only independently existing, metaphysical primaries (i.e., self-contained existents) are causally efficacious.”

The proposition that “Objectivism is committed to the position that all actions are actions performed by independently existing, metaphysical primaries (i.e., self-contained existents) and only independently existing, metaphysical primaries (i.e., self-contained existents) are causally efficacious,” features in Argument #2 as (P1), and in Argument #4 as (P3). Now, if the proposition, “All actions are actions performed by independently existing, metaphysical primaries (i.e., self-contained existents) and only independently existing, metaphysical primaries (i.e., self-contained existents) are causally efficacious,” is an accurate statement of a position that Objectivism is committed to, it follows that (P1) of Argument #2 and (P3) of Argument #4 are true. The following passages (among many others) from Objectivist literature should be sufficient to establish that the proposition, “All actions are actions performed by independently existing, metaphysical primaries (i.e., self-contained existents) and only independently existing, metaphysical primaries (i.e., self-contained existents) are causally efficacious,” is an accurate statement of a position that Objectivism is committed to. 

Furthermore, it is important to point out that the proposition, “Objectivism is committed to the position that all actions are actions performed by independently existing, metaphysical primaries (i.e., self-contained existents) and only independently existing, metaphysical primaries (i.e., self-contained existents) are causally efficacious,” is logically entailed by the proposition that “Objectivism is committed to the position that all actions are actions performed by entities and only entities are causally efficacious.” Therefore, it follows that if either (P1) of Argument #1, or (P1) of Argument #3 is true, then (P1) of Argument #2 and (P3) of Argument #4 are true. 

It is also important to note that the proposition, “All actions are actions performed by independently existing, metaphysical primaries (i.e., self-contained existents) and only independently existing, metaphysical primaries (i.e., self-contained existents) are causally efficacious,” follows necessarily from the proposition that “Entities are the only existents that perform actions,” and “Entities are the only existents that are causally efficacious.” I would also like to stress that while Objectivism maintains that although a characteristic of an entity, an attribute of an entity, an action of an entity, or a relationship between entities, is an existent, said existent is not itself an independently existing, metaphysical primary (i.e., a self-contained existent). According to Objectivism, the only independently existing, metaphysical primaries (i.e., self-contained existents) are entities. It is for the above reasons that the passages I will be providing (in this section) will be focused on highlighting Objectivism’s commitment to the position that “Entities are the only existents that are independently existing, metaphysical primaries (i.e., self-contained existents).”

“Entity, as we have seen, is the primary “category.” Only entities can act— and to be an entity is to be an individual.” (OPAR, 196)

“Entities are the only primary existents. (Attributes cannot exist by themselves, they are merely the characteristics of entities; motions are motions of entities; relationships are relationships among entities.)” (ITOE, 12) 

“An existent is, then, a particular which exists….An existent is a concrete. “Existent” is a very convenient term in that it subsumes entities and attributes and actions and event mental events. They exist….Everything that exists on which you can focus, anything which you can isolate, whether it is an entity, a relationship, an action, or an attribute. The concept “existent” refers to something which exists. And it is wider than the concept “entity,” because it permits you to subsume under that concept, and focus on, attributes or relationships or actions—on that which depends on an entity but can be studied separately.” (ITOE, 198-199)

“And an action-concept cannot precede an entity-concept. He first has to conceptualize the objects—the entities—then, the kinds of action they can perform, or he can perform with them.” (ITOE, 210)

“There are no attributes without entities, there are no actions without entities.” (ITOE, 264) 

“Attributes and actions cannot exist apart from the entity.” (ITOE, 265) 

“Objectivism is committed to the position that a man’s consciousness/mind is not an independently existing, metaphysical primary (i.e., a self-contained existent).”

The proposition that “Objectivism is committed to the position that a man’s consciousness/mind is not an independently existing, metaphysical primary (i.e., a self-contained existent),” features in Argument #2 as (P3), and in Argument #4 as (P2). Now, if the proposition, “A man’s consciousness/mind is not an independently existing, metaphysical primary (i.e., a self-contained existent),” is an accurate statement of a position that Objectivism is committed to, it follows that (P3) of Argument #2 and (P2) of Argument #4 are true.

Furthermore, it is important to point out that the proposition “Objectivism is committed to the position that a man’s consciousness/mind is not an independently existing, metaphysical primary (i.e., a self-contained existent),” is logically entailed by the proposition that “Objectivism is committed to the position that a man’s consciousness/mind is not an entity.” Likewise, the proposition, “Objectivism is committed to the position that a man’s consciousness/mind is not an independently existing, metaphysical primary (i.e., a self-contained existent),” is logically entailed by the proposition, “Objectivism is committed to the position that a man’s consciousness/mind is an attribute.” The proposition that “Objectivism is committed to the position that a man’s consciousness/mind is not an entity,” features in Argument #1 as (P3), and in Argument #3 as (P2); and the proposition, “Objectivism is committed to the position that a man’s consciousness/mind is an attribute,” is featured in Argument #5 as (P2), in Argument #6 as (P2), and in Argument #7 as (P2). Therefore, it follows that if either (P3) of Argument #1, or (P2) of Argument #3, or (P2) of Argument #5, or (P2) of Argument #6 is true, then (P3) of Argument #2 and (P2) of Argument #4 are true.

“Consciousness is an attribute of certain living entities, but it is not an attribute of a given state of awareness, it is that state.” (ITOE, 56) 

“Prof. F: Wouldn’t you say that consciousness is itself an attribute of man?...AR: Right, A faculty of man....What does one mean by “state of consciousness”? A state of a faculty possessed by an entity. Consciousness is not a primary object, it is not an independent existent, it’s an attribute of a certain kind of existents. You cannot project what you mean by a state of consciousness—neither by synonyms nor in any way—without referring to the person or the animal who possesses that consciousness: an entity of whom consciousness is a faculty. It is not possible to project it. Now why isn’t it possible? Because such a thing as a state of consciousness is obviously a derivative concept—derivative qua attribute. It’s a primary, as far as the conceptual chain is concerned, but in regard to observation, you have no way of experiencing or observing a state of consciousness without the entity which experiences it….The consciousness of self is implicit in [any grasp] of consciousness.” (ITOE, 216-217)

“The method must reflect two factors: the facts of external reality and the nature of man’s consciousness. It must reflect the first, because consciousness is not a self-contained entity; it is the faculty of perceiving that which exists. The method must reflect the second factor, because consciousness has identity; the mind is not blank receptivity; it is a certain kind of integrating mechanism, and it must act accordingly.” (OPAR, 117) 

“[Man] is, in Ayn Rand’s words, “an indivisible entity, an integrated unit of two attributes: of matter and consciousness.” Consciousness in his case takes the form of mind, i.e., a conceptual faculty; matter, of a certain kind of organic structure. Each of these attributes is indispensable to the other and to the total entity. The mind acquires knowledge and defines goals; the body translates these conclusions into action.” (OPAR, 196) 

“The same observations which reveal that consciousness is an attribute of certain living organisms reveal that it belongs to separate organisms.” (OPAR, 196) 

“Since man is an integration of two attributes, mind and body, every virtue reflects this integration.” (OPAR, 257) 

“Since consciousness is not an independent entity, it cannot attain fulfillment within its own domain.” (OPAR, 420)

“Objectivism is committed to the position that I am my consciousness/mind.”

The proposition that “Objectivism is committed to the position that I am my consciousness/mind,” is featured in Argument #4 as (P1), Argument #5 as (P3), Argument #6 as (P4), and Argument #7 as (P4). Now, if the proposition, “I am my consciousness/mind,” is an accurate statement of a position that Objectivism is committed to, it follows that (P1) of Argument #4, (P3) of Argument #5, (P4) of Argument #6, and (P4) of Argument #7 are all true. The following passages (among many others) from Objectivist literature should be sufficient to establish that the proposition, “I am my consciousness/mind,” is an accurate statement of a position that Objectivism is committed to.

“A man’s self is his mind...” (PWNI, 50) 

“A man’s self is his mind—the faculty that perceives reality, forms judgments, chooses values.” (PWNI, 68) 

“All of them dread self-reliance; all of them dread the responsibilities which only a self (i.e. a conceptual consciousness) can perform...” (PWNI, 68) 

“His vision, his strength, his courage came from his own spirit. A man’s spirit, however, is his self. That entity which is his consciousness. To think, to feel, to judge, to act are functions of the ego.” (FNI, 90) 

“The self you have betrayed is your mind…” (FNI, 117) 

“Your self is your mind…” (FNI, 142) 

“Your consciousness is that which you know—and are alone to know—by direct perception. It is that indivisible unit where knowledge and being are one, it is your “I”, it is the self which distinguishes you from all else in the universe. No consciousness can perceive another consciousness, only the results of its actions in material form, since only matter is an object of perception, and consciousness is the subject, perceivable by its nature only to itself. To perceive the consciousness, the “I”, of another would mean to become that other “I”—a contradiction in terms; to speak of souls perceiving one another is a denial of your “I”, of perception, of consciousness, of matter. The “I” is the irreducible unit of life.” (JAR, 571) 

“That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, the life-keeper of your body. Your body is a machine, your consciousness—your mind—is its driver…” (JAR, 571) 

“AR: Now, since it is an exact measurement, it presupposes a consciousness that is doing this. Whose consciousness? Prof. D: Well, say mine. AR: All right. And if you are able to measure it, and you are able to grasp relationships by means of measurement which you didn’t invent, that is exactness…who grasped that? You did.” (ITOE, 193) 

“It has to begin with pride in self, with that which constitutes man—the reasoning mind. The rights or application of the mind is unlimited, except for the right to deny itself—if a mind denies itself, it cannot enjoy the rights which belong only to it. To deny itself means to deny the mind’s essential [nature as] an individual entity. The mind can conclude anything it wishes—except that [it may] impose its will by force upon other minds.” (JAR, 227) 

“Since man’s physical survival depends upon his rational faculty, the realm of his mind precedes and determines every other sphere of his activity. That which is not proper in this realm cannot be proper in any of his actions. A man’s mind is an attribute of his self, of that entity within him which is his consciousness. That entity can be called spirit. It can be called soul. It remains—no matter what its origin—a man’s self. His “I”. His ego.” (JAR, 237) 

“The independence of man’s mind means precisely the placing of his ego above any and all other men on earth. It means acting upon the authority of his ego above any other authority. It means keeping his ego untouched, uninfluenced, uncorrupted, unsacrificed.” (JAR, 237) 

“The progression of a man’s mental (and psychological) development. (The progression of a man’s consciousness.)…First, he grasps objects, entities—then that these entities act, i.e., move or change. (It may seem to be almost simultaneous, but actually he must grasp “entity” before he can grasp “acting entity.”) The same [applies to] himself: first he gains self-consciousness, then he learns that this self can act (or must act) and that he must do it through choice.” (JAR, 476-477) 

“Man’s consciousness is not material—but neither is it an element opposed to matter. It is the element by which man controls matter—but the two are part of one entity and one universe—man cannot change matter, he can control it only by understanding it and shaping it to his purpose. (The distinction between “entity” and “action”—between noun and verb. The essence of being.) Man’s soul or spirit is his consciousness—here, now, on earth. The ruling element, the control, the free-will element of his consciousness is his reason. The rest—his emotions, his memory, his desires, his instincts—all are determined by his thinking, by the kind of conclusions he has made and the kind of premises he has accepted. The man of spirit is the man of the mind. He is the man who is not the slave, but the ruler of matter. He is the man who makes it possible for mankind to survive. He is the creative man. The morality of the mind—to be true to truth. The great courage, integrity and responsibility that it requires. The only cardinal sin is the denial or suspension of one’s reason—the refusal to face reality, identify it and make rational connections. No man can go against his own mind—and that is why he cannot submit to force. The greatest field where this morality is needed and expressed is the field of material production. All material production is an achievement of the spirit—of the mind. Every human creation has to start in the mind and be given form in matter—whether it’s a work of art or a commercial gadget. Every spiritual value of man has to be expressed in material form or action. What is a virtue, if man does not practice it or act upon it? The great courage and virtue of the producers.” (JAR, 530) 

“Your self is your mind, and its constant choice is the act of self-affirmation or self-denial, of perceiving or refusing to perceive, the act of being or non-being by which your mind, like a pilot-light within you, goes on or off. This act is your primary choice, it is your will, the only will you have, your only choice, from which all other choices proceed.” (JAR, 568) 

“I have stated explicitly (both in The Fountainhead and in Atlas Shrugged) that a man’s self is his consciousness and that the center and motor of his consciousness is his mind. I have discussed, illustrated and proved this point from every relevant aspect known to me. How am I to reconcile that with paragraph 6 of your note, particularly with the words: “some center of their lives, which is NOT THEMSELVES?” Since you rejected, without stating your reasons, the total of my view of what is man’s self—how could I tell what meaning you were assigning to the words “self” and “selfish” in your note?...This is an example of my conflict with modern philosophy: I am incapable of switching the definitions of my concepts to fit each separate occasion and of letting them mean one thing when I use them, but another when Bertrand Russell uses them, and a third when you use them. I am incapable of reading a paper such as your note, by the method of dropping or forgetting all definitions and then, without reference or commitment to any definition, using wide, fundamental concepts…while simultaneously regarding this usage as “non-definitional”.” (LAR, 535-536) [The caps and italics are Ayn Rand’s own, not mine] 

“Now, to be more specific, the question of Individualism and Collectivism is a question of man’s relation to other men. The relation of the EGO to society. Therefore, every character in my book, down to the most minor ones, represents one of the many possible aspects of that relation. My four key men are the four basic forms of the relation of the self to others.” (LAR, 223-224) 

“Man’s ego is his mind; the most crucial aspect of egoism is the sovereignty of one’s own rational judgment and the right to live by its guidance.” (LAR, 554) 

“It was Attila’s soul that spoke when Hume declared that he experienced a flow of fleeting states inside his skull, such as sensations, feelings or memories, but had never caught the experience of such a thing as consciousness or self.” (FNI, 23-24) [The italics are Rand’s own]

“Men have been taught that the ego is the synonym of evil, and selflessness the ideal of virtue. But the creator is the egoist in the absolute sense, and the selfless man is the one who does not think, feel, judge or act. These are functions of the self.” (FNI, 65) 

“The first right on earth is the right of the ego. Man’s first duty is to himself.” (FNI, 66) 

“A sense of honor is a selfish virtue by definition, because it implies the honor of one’s own self. Of one’s ego.” (JAR, 237-238) 

“Man’s soul or spirit is his consciousness; the motor of his consciousness is reason; deprive him of freedom, i.e., the right to use his mind—and what is left of him is only a physical body, ready to be manipulated by the strings of any tribe.” (“Requiem for Man (Part III),” The Objectivist, Sept 1967)

“Objectivism is committed to the position that an attribute is always possessed by something that is not the attribute itself.”

The proposition that “Objectivism is committed to the position that an attribute is always possessed by something that is not the attribute itself,” is featured in Argument #5 as (P1), in Argument #6 as (P1), and in Argument #7 as (P1). Now, if the proposition, “An attribute is always possessed by something that is not the attribute itself,” is an accurate statement of a position that Objectivism is committed to, it follows that (P1) of Argument #5, (P1) of Argument #6, and (P1) of Argument #7 are all true. The following passages (among many others) from Objectivist literature should be sufficient to establish that the proposition, “An attribute is always possessed by something that is not the attribute itself,” is an accurate statement of a position that Objectivism is committed to.

“An attribute is something which is not the entity itself. No one attribute constitutes the whole entity…” (ITOE, 276) 

“The first concepts man forms are concepts of entities—since entities are the only primary existents. (Attributes cannot exist by themselves, they are merely the characteristics of entities; motions are motions of entities; relationships are relationships among entities.)” (ITOE, 15) 

“An entity is that which you perceive and which can exist by itself. Characteristics, qualities, attributes, actions, relationships, do not exist by themselves…attributes and actions cannot exist apart from the entity.” (ITOE, 265) 

“An entity means a self-sufficient form of existence—as against a quality, an action, a relationship, etc., which are simply aspects of an entity that we separate out by specialized focus. An entity is a thing.” (The Philosophy of Objectivism Lecture Series, Lecture 3)  

“Objectivism is committed to the position that my consciousness/mind is an attribute.”

The proposition that “Objectivism is committed to the position that my consciousness/mind is an attribute,” is featured on Argument #6 as (P2), and in Argument #7 as (P2). Now, if the proposition, “My consciousness/mind is an attribute,” is an accurate statement of a position that Objectivism is committed to, it follows that (P2) of Argument #6 and (P2) of Argument #7 are true. The following passages (among many others) from Objectivist literature should be sufficient to establish that the proposition, “My consciousness/mind is an attribute,” is an accurate statement of a position that Objectivism is committed to.

“Consciousness is an attribute of certain living entities, but it is not an attribute of a given state of awareness, it is that state.” (ITOE, 56) 

“Prof. F: Wouldn’t you say that consciousness is itself an attribute of man?...AR: Right, A faculty of man....What does one mean by “state of consciousness”? A state of a faculty possessed by an entity. Consciousness is not a primary object, it is not an independent existent, it’s an attribute of a certain kind of existents. You cannot project what you mean by a state of consciousness—neither by synonyms nor in any way—without referring to the person or the animal who possesses that consciousness: an entity of whom consciousness is a faculty. It is not possible to project it. Now why isn’t it possible? Because such a thing as a state of consciousness is obviously a derivative concept—derivative qua attribute. It’s a primary, as far as the conceptual chain is concerned, but in regard to observation, you have no way of experiencing or observing a state of consciousness without the entity which experiences it….The consciousness of self is implicit in [any grasp] of consciousness.” (ITOE, 154, 216-217)

“Whether he has a soul or is a material being with the attribute of consciousness, in either case his distinctive, essential attribute is consciousness, not matter…” (JAR, 13) 

“Man is a being endowed with consciousness—an attribute which matter does not possess.” (LAR, 463) 

“A man’s volition is outside the power of other men. What the unalterable basic constituents are to nature, the attribute of a volitional consciousness is to the entity “man”.” (PWNI, 38) 

“Objectivity begins with the realization that man (including his every attribute and faculty, including his consciousness) is an entity of a specific nature who must act accordingly…” (ITOE, 82) 

“All questions presuppose that one has a faculty of knowledge, i.e., the attribute of consciousness. One ignorant of this attribute must perforce be ignorant of the whole field of cognition (and of philosophy).” (OPAR, 5) 

“Consciousness is an attribute of perceived entities here on earth.” (OPAR, 33)

“The method must reflect two factors: the facts of external reality and the nature of man’s consciousness. It must reflect the first, because consciousness is not a self-contained entity; it is the faculty of perceiving that which exists. The method must reflect the second factor, because consciousness has identity; the mind is not blank receptivity; it is a certain kind of integrating mechanism, and it must act accordingly.” (OPAR, 117) 

“[Man] is, in Ayn Rand’s words, “an indivisible entity, an integrated unit of two attributes: of matter and consciousness.” Consciousness in his case takes the form of mind, i.e., a conceptual faculty; matter, of a certain kind of organic structure. Each of these attributes is indispensable to the other and to the total entity. The mind acquires knowledge and defines goals; the body translates these conclusions into action.” (OPAR, 196) 

“The same observations which reveal that consciousness is an attribute of certain living organisms reveal that it belongs to separate organisms.” (OPAR, 196) 

“It is one’s recognition of the fact that the mind is an attribute of the individual and that no person can think for another.” (OPAR, 255) 

“Since man is an integration of two attributes, mind and body, every virtue reflects this integration.” (OPAR, 257) 

“Integrity, the refusal to permit a breach between thought and action, presupposes an individual's freedom in regard to both man’s attributes: mind and body.” (OPAR, 388) 

“Such is the harmony between mind and body attained in practice by a system that is based from the start on a correct view of these two attributes of man.” (OPAR, 401)

“Since consciousness is not an independent entity, it cannot attain fulfillment within its own domain.” (OPAR, 420)

“Objectivism is committed to the position that my consciousness/mind is an attribute which I, and I alone possess.”

The proposition that “Objectivism is committed to the position that my consciousness/mind is an attribute which I, and I alone possess,” features in Argument #6 as (P3), and in Argument #7 as (P3). Now, if the proposition, “My consciousness/mind is an attribute which I, and I alone possess,” is an accurate statement of a position that Objectivism is committed to, it follows that (P3) of Argument #6 and (P3) of Argument #7 are true. The following passages (among many others) from Objectivist literature should be sufficient to establish that the proposition, “My consciousness/mind is an attribute which I, and I alone possess,” is an accurate statement of a position that Objectivism is committed to. 

“It is one’s recognition of the fact that the mind is an attribute of the individual and that no person can think for another.” (OPAR, 255)

“All the functions of body and spirit,” writes Ayn Rand, “are private. They cannot be shared or transferred.” One cannot think for or through another person any more than one can breathe or digest food for him. Each man’s brain, like his lungs and stomach, is his alone to use.” (OPAR, 198)

“Consciousness is not a primary object, it is not an independent existent, it’s an attribute of a certain kind of existents. You cannot project what you mean by a state of consciousness—neither by synonyms nor in any way—without referring to the person or the animal who possesses that consciousness: an entity of whom consciousness is a faculty. It is not possible to project it. Now why isn’t it possible? Because such a thing as a state of consciousness is obviously a derivative concept—derivative qua attribute. It’s a primary, as far as the conceptual chain is concerned, but in regard to observation, you have no way of experiencing or observing a state of consciousness without the entity which experiences it….The consciousness of self is implicit in [any grasp] of consciousness.” (ITOE, 216-217)

“Your consciousness is that which you know—and are alone to know—by direct perception. It is that indivisible unit where knowledge and being are one, it is your “I”, it is the self which distinguishes you from all else in the universe. No consciousness can perceive another consciousness, only the results of its actions in material form, since only matter is an object of perception, and consciousness is the subject, perceivable by its nature only to itself. To perceive the consciousness, the “I”, of another would mean to become that other “I”—a contradiction in terms; to speak of souls perceiving one another is a denial of your “I”, of perception, of consciousness, of matter. The “I” is the irreducible unit of life.” (JAR, 571) 

Note: This article was originally published on February 19th, 2021; however, I have decided to republish the article (namely, due to recent additions and alterations in its presentation and format).