Leonid

"She did answer decidedly, in 1976 in an oral exchange, what she saw as her most important philosophical achievements, but she ventured no placements in comparison to achievements of other philosophers, so far as I recall."

From "AYN RAND ANSWERS" ( pg 148-149,PO6 76)
Q: Besides Aristotle and Ayn Rand have any philosophers identified important philosophical truths?

A:In a sense,there's only one philosopher:Aristotle-he covered essentials...So if you speak in big terms,I'd rather Dr.Peikoff said it,but since I'm his stand-up tonight,take the three As: Aristotle,Aquinas,and Ayn Rand.

I have a few ideas on the questions I posed, but no settlement of them.

Rand has Galt say: “A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his [Aristotle’s] statement. I am here to complete it . . . .” She has crafted Galt’s voice in his speech to be more Promethean than would be her own. So we have the fictional Galt saying “the greatest of your philosophers,” rather than simply “the greatest philosopher.” That being understood, it is nonetheless reasonable to suppose that when Rand has Galt say “I am here to complete it,” the first-person pronoun goes not only for Galt speaking of himself, but Rand speaking of herself.

Saying that she is completing a profound principle of metaphysics (and epistemology) that was first stated by Aristotle, the greatest philosopher, says little to nothing about how important she thinks her innovation—Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification—should be regarded in the history of philosophy. I suggested that we may have been told an upper bound on Rand’s self-estimation concerning her philosophical innovations beyond (what is admirable in) Aristotle when she made her remark on Aquinas in the Intro to RM.

There is an ambiguity in my phrase “should be regarded in the history of philosophy” in the preceding paragraph and in the original post. I do not mean: What was Rand’s assessment of what importance would likely be given to her innovations in the future history of philosophy? Rather, I mean an assessment on a more analytical and less historical plane.

That same ambiguity is one of the difficulties of interpreting Rand’s remark in RM. Aquinas “is one illustrious example: he was a bridge between Aristotle and the Renaissance, . . . .” Rand is speaking in that statement of the social course of intellectual history and the important role Aquinas had in it. But that is not all she means by choice of the term illustrious. For she has informed the reader, in the preceding sentence, that she considers Aquinas to have had a remarkable intellect, capable of grasping Aristotle’s intellectual achievement and extending it.

Then comes the sentence “Speaking only of the pattern, with no presumptuous comparison of stature intended, I am a bridge of that kind . . . .” At this point, Rand could be leaving behind thought of the intellectual achievement of Aquinas and estimation of its analytical place among philosophical achievements. She could be now intending the reader think only of his role in the social course of intellectual history. I don’t think so, because of the choice of the term stature. In this sentence, Rand seems to be still carrying together both threads of thought.

Now to consider the last-quoted RM sentence in its entirety: “Speaking only of the pattern, with no presumptuous comparison of stature intended, I am a bridge of that kind—between the esthetic achievements of the nineteenth century and the minds that choose to discover them, wherever and whenever such minds exist.” In the context of the sentences preceding this one, I think Rand is here stating a relation between relations. A placement of Aquinas concerning philosophy is being related to a placement of Rand concerning Romanticism. There is present the complexity of relations between relations, like the complexity we have in saying that the ratio of 2 ounces to 3 ounces is greater than the ratio of 3 inches to 5 inches. To be sure, Rand expressly did not want to be taken as saying “as Aquinas’ place in the propagation of Aristotle, that large is my place in the propagation of Romanticism.” An additional complexity enters on the possibility that a secondary message is being telegraphed, a message to the effect, “I do not presume that my intellectual accomplishments are of the stature of those of Aquinas (let alone Aristotle).”

Perhaps Rand has other texts I have not recalled in which she indicates, obliquely or straight-forwardly, how important her innovations should be regarded in the history of philosophy. She did answer decidedly, in 1976 in an oral exchange, what she saw as her most important philosophical achievements, but she ventured no placements in comparison to achievements of other philosophers, so far as I recall.

"“Speaking only of the pattern, with no presumptuous comparison of stature intended, I am a bridge of that kind—between the esthetic achievements of the nineteenth century and the minds that choose to discover them, wherever and whenever such minds exist.” (pp. vii–viii, emphasis added)

"In 1969 she indicates that it would be presumptuous to compare her own stature to that of Aquinas..."

Stephen,

I don't agree with your conclusion above. I read Rand's comment literally. Meaning she is speaking of the pattern, and doesn't want the reader to think she is talking about her stature. She says nothing, positive or negative, about her stature in regards to Aquinas.

Michael

Rand, I think, is imputing the whole of the Aristotelian tradition to Aristotle himself (with some justification) and suggesting that her own addition is a only a clarification -- but an important one.