Anthem

Anthem is another of Ayn Rand’s works. One of her early works, in fact. Read it today in no time, in e-book form. That’s something that would have made her furious, had she been alive. She was unable to get past the notion that words are property.

I don’t believe in IP, as you may have guessed by now. It’s one of the three major flaws in Ayn Rand’s philosophy, the others being her position on anarchy and her abdication of her principle of consistency in answering how governments can exist and be financed in a free society.  

That apart, Anthem was a wonderful read. If Atlas Shrugged is awesome, Anthem is beyond awesome. Nowhere else, in my entire reading, have I come across a greater defense of ego and “I” than in Anthem. It transported me into a different world, as a good work of fiction should. Contemplating the philosophy in that book, I realized that I have a confession to make.

It has been gnawing me for quite a while, ever since I started to think, to reason. Throughout schooling, I have been taught to think in terms of “we” instead of “I”.

“We want to play.”

“We would like it if you could explain this concept again.”

“We wish you all the best.”

It was the same even in college.

Very recently, someone phrased a question to a professor inside the classroom the same way.

“We would like to know if...”

So many times, I’ve been subjected to this “we”.

“We feel that...”

“We would like you to...”

Numerous times I’ve been frustrated with this word, and felt disgusted with myself for thinking, and sometimes, inadvertently, talking in such terms.

Now I know its origins, the evil behind it, and what it seeks to do. Words have meaning; they have the power to help one in reasoning, in conceptualization. Destruction of words can destroy one’s ability to understand the concept represented by that word. I don’t want to engage in concept destruction by having a faulty vocabulary. And that is why it matters whether one has a good command of the language or not. It shows the power of that person’s reasoning mind. The surest way to destroy a mind is through the destruction of concepts, of words that embody that concept. 1984, a novel by George Orwell, is supposedly on that.

The more I read, the more knowledge I gain, the more my eyes open, the better I understand reality. The more I write, the better the sinking in of the concepts I’ve grasped, the better my articulation of what I’ve understood. It is to this end that I write, it is that end which this blog, as an outlet for my writings, serves.

Atlas Shrugged

Man as a trader, exchanging value for value; living for the sake of one’s own happiness; selfishness as the highest moral virtue; never seek or grant the unearned; never live for the sake of another man nor ask another man to live for the sake of yours; judge; discriminate; hold reason above all else; never compromise on principles; hold reality as the ultimate arbiter; if you arrive at a contradiction, check your premises; to earn profits is virtuous – these, and more, philosophical statements are the essence of Atlas Shrugged, a novel expounding the moral code of a man. 

I started reading Atlas Shrugged sometime in mid-July, and completed it about 2 weeks ago. I’m no neophyte to Ayn Rand’s philosophy- I’ve read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and The Virtue of Selfishness- but, this book really opened my eyes, changed my perception of myself and gave me the ammunition to re-form my moral code without the contradictions it was earlier riddled with. I’ll elaborate, but first, something about the book. 

I can very well understand why it has been called Ayn Rand’s masterpiece. It is a great work of art, a brilliant philosophical treatise, and all that, but more than that, for me, the book was a learning experience unsurpassed by any learning I’ve had prior to it in my life, except, perhaps, from Ragnarok Online. Or rather, it integrated all my previous learning, blasted apart the contradictions in my thinking and helped me understand morality, and how to be moral in a way nothing else has. The way Ayn Rand has understood the common contradictions in our thinking, and the masterful way in which she has addressed them in order to make us aware of our faults- that is the significance of this work to me. 

Face reality. Nobody lives in this valley by faking reality, says John Galt to Dagny Taggart. If I face reality, I’ll have to admit to the philosophical contradictions present in my thinking and demonstrated in my actions. 

I’ve faked reality quite often, when reality was hard to accept. I’ve turned a Nelson’s eye where I should have judged, discriminated, and acted according to my moral values. Now I consciously try to avoid faking reality; I face reality especially where it is hardest to face, because I know it to be right. 

Never grant the unearned. I’ve always balked at asking for the unearned, demanding from others that which I had no claim to, but I’ve never had a problem in granting the unearned, giving others that which they had no claim to, out of a spirit of generosity/altruism. There existed a contradiction in my thinking. How is it right to grant the unearned when it is not right to ask for it? I abdicated my responsibility to answer that question. Now, faced with it, I can answer: it is not right. Never grant, nor ask for, the unearned. 

After answering that question, I found that I was also guilty of asking for the unearned! Facing reality, I am now correcting myself. 

Live life as a trader, exchanging value for value. It’s pretty obvious, at least in matters related to money. It’s not so obvious when it comes to other exchanges between individuals. If an exchange is voluntary, what lies at its root? Reverse valuation. Each individual values that which he receives over that which he gives. Each individual has to offer value to the other in order to gain value from the other. 

There’s a lot of value I’d like to gain from quite a few people, but I have nothing to offer them in return. My need is not a claim on their value. The moral thing to do would be to bring myself up to a position where I can offer them value, thus gaining what I want and making both of us better off. And where I really can’t offer anything of value, I’ll have to sigh and face reality- there’s some value I can’t gain due to the inadequacy of my offering. 

Facing reality on this is probably the hardest thing I’ve ever done. Is there an alternative? Not if I want to live as a man, with a moral code that doesn’t have contradictions. I do.

Ayn Rand, Morality, and Personal Decisions

I have been heavily influenced by Ayn Rand’s philosophy since about the same time last year. Earlier, my philosophically-oriented friend used to say I spout her philosophy, due to the similarities he found between my way of thinking and what she expounded, but I never really considered myself to be influenced by Rand, for I had read none of her works except Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

All that changed after reading Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. I went around dazed for a long time, trying to understand, trying to fit my world view to the new lens I had acquired. I succeeded at last after months of deep thought, but I still had misgivings on my understanding of ethics, morality, justice and social principles.

As part of a course here at IIT-M, I decided I’d do a book review of her The Virtue of Selfishness, partly because it’s a small book and partly because I really wanted to fill in the gaps in my understanding. I read it at a time when I was already in emotional turmoil, and it made my head spin. Life would never be the same again.

It’s not that I imbibed philosophy from a book; I was already thinking along similar lines, and the book brought it out, made it explicit, and guided me in my thinking. People generally scorn at learning life’s lessons from books; for me, learning is learning regardless of the source. My major learning comes from seeing how two people I know think, and I’m not embarrassed to admit that.

Morality, at its best, is selfishness. Morality is the guiding light behind all our actions, yet we never really think about it and try to formalize it. In fact, conventional wisdom has it that morality is subjective, ought not to be defined, but in a broad sense consists of not hurting others and helping them out. It is such vague ‘definitions’ of morality, which try to obscure the truth from our mind, that Ayn Rand totally trashes.

Morality, as defined by Rand, is a hierarchy of values chosen by man in order to pursue his rational long-term self-interest. The term selfishness means concern with the self. It is this concern with the self that should drive all our actions. Sounds obvious, but the point is often misrepresented and misunderstood. The competing paradigm of morality is one of altruism, which preaches selflessness. It means the giving up of a greater value for a lesser value in order to serve a larger public purpose. Under such a moral code, the moral thing to do would be to give up your sight so that 2 blind men can see, your lungs so that a smoker can continue his disastrous habits, your kidneys to save 2 people the discomfort of dialysis, and your heart so that another person can live on. By sacrificing your life, a greater value to you, you can benefit 6 others, a lesser value to you, and serve the public good. That’s the tenet of altruism, and its proponents, however hardcore, never seem to practice what they preach.

Our minds have, somehow, been conditioned to accept altruism in its milder forms. By sheer instinct, we cannot avoid being selfish, but the propaganda of altruism has the effect of distorting our thoughts and view of reality enough to push through the altruist agenda. Common phrases such as rich people should give back to society, companies should follow corporate social responsibility, we need to save the environment, etc. are all a part of the altruist view of morality.

Coming back to selfishness. If it is the exact opposite of altruist morality, then it should be definable as the choosing of a greater value over a lesser value, to serve our own selfish needs. And yes, it is definable that way.

GETTING BACK TO GROUND LEVEL

After spewing out a lot of abstract concepts, let me explain how exactly I can be selfish in my daily life with an example. The example isn’t simple; a simple one wouldn’t suffice to explain the depth of the concept.

Let’s say I have a friend I hold dear but who, I think, doesn’t reciprocate my feelings. English being a sexist language, I’m going to use ‘he’ to denote the friend hereon. I think he doesn’t reciprocate my feelings because he wronged me in some way and refused to acknowledge it, failing which I find it indigestible for me to continue the friendship.

My philosophy is the answer to the question “What should I do?”

The selfish thing to do would be to give up the lesser value for the greater value in order to pursue my rational, long-term self-interest. The question now boils down to: which is the greater value?

What is a value anyway? It is merely something for which you act to gain or keep it.

In this scenario, what are my two values? One is the friendship, which I seek to preserve, and the other is my feeling about what has happened.

Ideally, I should give up on my feelings of the moment and value the friendship more since its loss would hurt me more than swallowing my feelings. The moral thing to do would be to give in, make amends and resume the friendship, which may grow stronger after such rifts.

No.

Not so, and not so obvious.

Morality is a code of values which helps me act according to my rational, long-term, self-interest. Had the long-term part not been there, the above solution would be moral.

The right question to ask is, should I continue to be friends with he who doesn’t value my friendship enough to right the wrongs he committed? For him, his ego in not giving in is a greater value and the friendship at stake is a lesser value. In other words, he values my friendship less than his pride, even when he knows he has done wrong.

By holding such a friend dear, I’d be doing an injustice to my long-term self-interest. It is better for me to acknowledge that the friendship is at an end, suffer in the short-term and be more careful in placing my trust in people in future.

Greater value correctly identified: Giving up on those who don’t reciprocate since they’re not worthy of you.

Lesser value correctly identified: The beautiful friendship you had, and which you can save by swallowing your feelings of the moment and accepting the fact that you need them more than they need you.

The moral thing to do in this hypothetical example is to break that friendship, suffer a short-term setback, while being more careful in future.

This illustrates another point about morality. Being moral does not equate to being happy all the time. Morality is merely the tool you use to strive for happiness. This answers questions such as what’s the point in being moral when it only makes you unhappy. It’s the time horizon which needs to be looked at: ephemeral happiness now at a huge cost or incur a greater cost for a more lasting happiness in the future. Such decisions add up, their effects amplifying over time.

Some things are worth giving up on, even though they are dear. That’s an amazing lesson I learned.

In the other side of the example, it is easy to determine the moral thing to do. If that friendship matters, accept your mistake. If not, save your ego.

This illustrates another point about morality. Moral values are not absolutes. There is no decree that you choose friendship over ego or vice-versa. It is your choice entirely, based on your values, your subjective appraisement of what you desire.

I hope this example has sufficiently conveyed how morality is the right lens to use for personal decision-making. It feels good to blog again after well over a year. Thank you, readers, and comments are most welcome.