Editing Ayn Rand (section)

=== Relationship to other philosophers ===
{{multiple image|perrow=2|total_width=300
| image1=Aristotle Altemps Inv8575.jpg|alt1=Marble statue of Aristotle
| image2=Immanuel Kant portrait c1790.jpg|alt2=Painting of Immanuel Kant
| footer=Rand claimed [[Aristotle]] (left) as her primary philosophical influence, and strongly criticized [[Immanuel Kant]] (right).
}}
Except for [[Aristotle]], [[Thomas Aquinas]] and [[classical liberals]], Rand was sharply critical{{sfn|Sciabarra|2013|p=111}} of most philosophers and philosophical traditions known to her.{{sfn|O'Neill|1977|pp=18–20}}{{sfn|Sciabarra|2013|p=11}} Acknowledging Aristotle as her greatest influence,{{sfn|Burns|2009|p=2}} Rand remarked that in the [[history of philosophy]] she could only recommend "three A's"—Aristotle, Aquinas, and Ayn Rand.{{sfn|Sciabarra|2013|p=11}} In a 1959 interview with [[Mike Wallace]], when asked where her philosophy came from, she responded: "Out of my own mind, with the sole acknowledgement of a debt to Aristotle, the only philosopher who ever influenced me."{{sfn|Podritske|Schwartz|2009|pp=174–175}}

In an article for the ''[[Claremont Review of Books]]'', political scientist [[Charles Murray (political scientist)|Charles Murray]] criticized Rand's claim that her only "philosophical debt" was to Aristotle. He asserted her ideas were derivative of previous thinkers such as [[John Locke]] and [[Friedrich Nietzsche]].{{sfn|Murray|2010}} Rand took early inspiration from Nietzsche,{{sfn|Burns|2009|pp=16, 22}}{{sfn|Sciabarra|2013|pp=94–99}} and scholars have found indications of this in Rand's private journals. In 1928, she alluded to his idea of the "[[Übermensch|superman]]" in notes for an unwritten novel whose protagonist was inspired by the murderer [[William Edward Hickman]], whom Rand observed early in the trial before his guilt was decided by jury.{{sfn|Burns|2009|pp=24–25}} 

There are other indications of Nietzsche's influence in passages from the first edition of ''We the Living'', which Rand later revised,<ref>Loiret-Prunet, Valerie. "Ayn Rand and Feminist Synthesis: Rereading ''We the Living''". In {{harvnb|Gladstein|Sciabarra|1999|p=97}}.</ref> and in her overall writing style.{{sfn|Badhwar|Long|2020}}<ref>Sheaffer, Robert. "Rereading Rand on Gender in the Light of Paglia". In {{harvnb|Gladstein|Sciabarra|1999|p=313}}.</ref> By the time she wrote ''The Fountainhead'', Rand had turned against Nietzsche's ideas,{{sfn|Heller|2009|p=42}}{{sfn|Burns|2009|pp=41, 68}} and the extent of his influence on her even during her early years is disputed.{{sfn|Burns|2009|pp=303–304}} Rand's views also may have been influenced by the promotion of egoism among the [[Russian nihilists]], including Chernyshevsky and [[Dmitry Pisarev]],{{sfn|Weinacht|2021|pp=31–32}}{{sfn|Offord|2022|p=40}} although there is no direct evidence that she read them.{{sfn|Weinacht|2021|pp=12–13}}{{sfn|Offord|2022|pp=38–39}}

Rand considered [[Immanuel Kant]] her philosophical opposite and "the most evil man in mankind's history".{{sfn|Rand|1971|p=4}} She believed his epistemology undermined reason and his ethics opposed self-interest.<ref>Salmieri, Gregory. "An Introduction to the Study of Ayn Rand". In {{harvnb|Gotthelf|Salmieri|2016|p=14}}.</ref> Philosophers George Walsh and Fred Seddon have argued she misinterpreted Kant and exaggerated their differences.{{sfn|Hill|2001|p=195}}{{sfn|Register|2004|p=155}} She was critical of [[Plato]] and viewed his differences with Aristotle on questions of metaphysics and epistemology as the primary conflict in the history of philosophy.<ref>[[James G. Lennox|Lennox, James G]]. {{" '}}Who Sets the Tone for a Culture?' Ayn Rand's Approach to the History of Philosophy". In {{harvnb|Gotthelf|Salmieri|2016|p=325}}.</ref>

Rand's relationship with contemporary philosophers was mostly antagonistic. She was not an academic and did not participate in academic discourse.{{sfn|Machan|2000|p=121}}{{sfn|Brühwiler|2021|pp=24–26}} She was dismissive of critics and wrote about ideas she disagreed with in a polemical manner without in-depth analysis.{{sfn|Brühwiler|2021|pp=24–26}}{{sfn|Machan|2000|p=147}} Academic philosophers viewed her negatively and dismissed her as an unimportant figure who should not be considered a philosopher, or given any serious response.{{sfn|Badhwar|Long|2020}}{{sfn|Brühwiler|2021|p=27}}{{sfn|Cleary|2018}}