Objectivism also teaches that reason is the human faculty that identifies and integrates a person's experience, and that reason itself is fully competent to understand and interpret the facts of reality. Moving into the more rigid territory-the frozen views of Objectivism-Ayn Rand taught that any form of irrationalism, supernaturalism, or mysticism, that any claim to a nonsensory, nonrational form of knowledge, is to be automatically rejected. To Ayn Rand a rational and objective code of ethics and morality is not only possible but comes from an assessment of the nature of human beings, as well as the nature of reality. In Objectivism the sole standard of the "good" is not God or the needs of society or other people, but "Man's life,"[1] which is what is objectively required for a person to live, survive, and maintain a sense of well-being.
Focusing on the self Objectivism teaches that human beings are ends in and of themselves and that we all have the right to exist for our own sakes. An Objectivist does not sacrifice another person for himself, nor does he sacrifice himself for another person. The principles of justice and respect for individuality, autonomy, and personal rights replace the principle of sacrifice in society and also in personal and interpersonal relationships.
Objectivism is very empowering, and very seductive, because, contrary to what we tend to learn and experience in our schools and places of worship, Objectivism does not tell you that your mind is impotent or that to be smart or to be an individual is somehow bad. Objectivism does not teach you that you are inherently sinful, as with the Christian concept of original sin, or that you are ultimately powerless, just one small cog in the larger machine. Objectivism does not teach that your life is futile, that it must be lived in service to everyone else, or that you are ultimately doomed[2]. Objectivism does not teach nihilism or existentialism or that existence is ultimately meaningless. On the contrary Objectivism teaches exactly the opposite of each of these, which makes it a powerful and important philosophy. Unfortunately, the implementation of Objectivist ethics and the epistemology are inherently flawed.
Rather than the external, reality-based nature of dukkha taught by traditional Buddhism, Objectivism teaches that humanity's primary problem is that we have not learned to understand the nature of our own power or our possibilities, as opposed to not understanding the true nature of reality itself. Objectivism celebrates the mind and the self and teaches that, like the Buddha inside of all of us, we are competent enough to understand reality. The most important message of Objectivism is that life is not about dread and defeat and anguish, but about achievement and exaltation in being human.
I certainly take no issue with this-in fact, you could say that the empowering, self-directed portions of Objectivist philosophy are a practice of right view and right action. However one reason for the blending of Objectivist epistemology and Zen Buddhism into Dark Buddhism is that Ayn Rand often confused reason with what is reasonable. There is a large difference between reason itself, which is a mental process, and what actions, speech, thoughts, and feelings a person might find to be "reasonable." Anyone who has read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged can see that her idealized men and women are not accurate characterizations of human beings. They are, essentially, robots who act purely out of reason, logic and defiance...and that is actually not reasonable at all.
More importantly-and this is seen time and again in her nonfiction essays, books, articles, and speeches-if someone disagreed with Rand's notion of what was reasonable, she would accuse that person of being "irrational" or "against reason." Although "reason" may be objective, as it is ultimately based on reality, what is "reasonable" is purely subjective. Objectivism teaches blindness to this distinction and also promotes very rigid views that are, necessarily inaccurate and ultimately illogical. To give you an idea of just how frozen these views can be, Rand considered her personal opinions on music, art, and literature to be what was rational, and if another opinion was expressed, the holder of that opinion was an "irrational"-and sometimes "immoral"-person. This type of moral judgment, which is not based on any sort of objective standard, pervades the writings and codes of Objectivism.
http://www.darkbuddhism.com/id3.html
