I have recently been having a discussion with a few of my friends about this book that I love. I discovered it a few years ago during my time in Tanzania, its called Atlas Shrugged, written by this amazing woman Ayn Rand. This novel is seen by most people as Rand's most complete statement of her objectivism philosophy. I don't want to go into it much here, in the appendix of Atlas Shrugged she offered this summary: "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."The magic in my opinion of Rand's philosophy is that she is saying that there is nothing wrong with saying that what you are doing is for your own good. That working to make yourself happy, will in the long run end up helping the people around you. She argues that independence and individual achievement drive the world, and should be embraced. Her worldview requires a 'rational' moral code. She disputes the notion that self-sacrifice is a virtue. The idea that each person is responsible for achieving his/her own rational self-interest is what I find to be quite revolutionary-if that is the right word-for there is a difference between rational self-interest and what she calls "selfishness without a self"-which is a moment selfishness to promote the self that has no esteem. She uses the example of thieves, stating that instead of using "that which promotes the concept of human life," as their standard of values, they promote "that which I value" as the standard, thus leaving a blank check on what is and what isn't moral.
What this all means-and why I find it revolutionary-is that it allows one to think that is fine to think of oneself, to consider what would make my life better, what would make me happier. For in the long run that would help everyone around me. It makes me feel good to give charity, to volunteer at organisation-UNRWA, Cancer Research-and by then going out and doing that, I help the people around, my society.
The discussion that happened between my friends and I , was the fact that quite a few people find it hard to swallow when one says that there is nothing called a selfless act. We don't do anything just for the sake of it-everything good, every decision that is made with the propose of promoting the concept of human life, is valid. During the discussion many examples were bought up, the one that I found the hardest to think in Randian terms was when my friends bought up the fact that they have to pick me up and bring me home-since I do not have a car at this moment. Now one could think that when any of my friends comes to pick me up, and then drive me home, that they are doing a purely selfless act-that they gain nothing from it. But there is another way of thinking about it, by picking me up and bringing me home, they have someone with them in the car, that promotes their happiness and at the same time mine-they get to have a companion, and I get to go out and see my friends. Also where ever we end up going, I must bring some sort of enjoyment to the sitting, willa why would they call me and pick me up. So in Randian terms-and I hope this is making sense to people-when I get picked up and brought home by any of my friends, it is not a selfless act. But truly a rational selfishness, we all gain, we are all happy.
I think the true power of Rand and this novel, is that it has made me think in a completely different way, whenever I make a decision I see that I no longer think in terms of what do other people want, how can I make others happy. But what will make me happy. This can also be explained when one talks about ones parents. I am the only child, and am very close to both my mother and father, and I ask their opinion on most decision that I have to make about my future. There have been quite a few times when my parents and I didn't agree on a course of action-one being my decision to come back to Amman and find a job here-they wanted me to stay abroad, and find a job there. I think that me coming back was a rationally selfish act, I don't have to pay rent anymore, or think about bills, and the fridge is always full and my laundry is done. But at the same time I am close to my parents, I am bringing my experience and education back to Jordan where I will inshallah find a job and work hard.
So all in all the point of Randism is this:
"To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason, Purpose, Self-Esteem"
Ayn Rand is a great discussion topic. And I hope to see more comments on this post.
ReplyDeleteWhile I enjoyed reading Atlas Shrugged, I really disagree with Objectivism. It makes two main claims that I disagree with:
1- All acts are selfish.
2- if all people work rationally for their self-interest, eventually they will find out that helping each other is the best way. And thus, everybody will benefit and live a better life.
My response to:
1- There is no selfless act
Ayn Rand claims that “To help the poor makes you happy, thus it’s selfish.”
This claim is flat out wrong, and it’s just a play on words. There are two types of happiness:
1- Id happiness of satisfying primitive desires (e.g. eating food, sexual intercourse, etc.)
2- Happiness of choosing the Superego (Morals) over the Id (e.g. favoring the poor with your money over yourself).
Think about it for a minute – the feeling you get from each is very different. These are two very different feelings that just share the same English word “happiness”.
Now, since we have differentiated between the two, which one is the goal of objectivism. And you cannot say both, because they OFTEN clash! (this is the famous clash of Id & Superego that Freud talks about).
The second type of happiness is by definition “selfless”. This is what people and authors have meant by selfless for a long time, and mixing the two just confuses the matter.
From what I’ve read, Objectivism is really about the Id Happiness (the primitive selfish happiness). The side claim “there is no selfless act” is only made to confuse people.
2- If each works rationally for one’s self-interest, the world will be a better place.
This is what Rand tried to show in all her novels. And this is what makes the novels idealistic and very unrealistic. Out of all the characters in the novel, there is NOT ONE to represent the evil intelligent self-serving person - a type of person we see A LOT OF in reality.
Sweat shops are a great example: the owner’s self-interest is to hire large number of workers at extremely low wages and in very bad conditions. They might die or get sick, but there are so many of them, the owner can replace them at virtually no cost to him. And he can do this to the end of his life. A self-feeding selfish-cycle.
Slavery is another example of a self-feeding selfish-cycle.
What to do with old poor people who cannot be productive anymore? kill them? According to Objectivism, these people are not needed anymore. If they cannot save and take care of themselves, then it’s not in anybody’s self-interest to help them.
*****************************
General Thoughts on Objectivism:
*****************************
I see Ayn Rand's philosophy as an extreme response to an extreme situation: Communism in USSR – where Ayn grew up.
Communism in USSR told people that you have to suppress your Id's needs to attain the Superego's goals (idealistic society). This is why Russians were fed badly, basic freedoms were taken away, people disappeared, all in the hope of achieving the 'justice for all society' - an idealistic superego goal. This treatment was so outlandish, Russians unfortunately lost both worlds: never got the ideal society they wanted and didn't enjoy their current lives. Their basic happiness was constantly suppressed for the so-claimed 'selflessness' and betterment of the world.
Ayn Rand escaped this society and went to America and was trying hard to figure out "what is wrong with pure selflessness?" instead of "what is a good balanced philosophy to live by?". As a result, she embraced capitalism (objectivism) wholly and never tried to think hard about what could be wrong with pure objectivism.
Objectivism is really a modern simplistic philosophy to solve an ancient question: how to resolve the clash between the Id (primitive interest) and the Superego (morals/ethics) to result in the betterment of the world. Almost all religions and epic novels from the beginning of humanity try to address this question. And just saying “work for your own happiness” does NOT answer the question – which happiness to work for?
I personally believe that if we all live forever and we can think rationally about the consequences of our actions for many many years ahead, then we, as human beings, will find a perfect ethical code to live buy and live happily with the environment around us.
However, since we do not live forever, and most of us are not rational, and few of those even consider the consequences, then extremely few people can arrive at the right code just by pure human thinking. This is why, I believe, God has decided to help us by shortcutting this process and providing us with the code directly.
I believe that what great human thinkers have reached with ‘instinct’ (fitra) (e.g. Budha) is very similar to what one learns from religion (e.g. Islam – as a Muslim, I believe that Islam is the last revelation and the one kept most pure from people’s modifications).
The job of the great thinkers of Islam is to reach the code from both ends (Rational & Message), and to find the correct implementation of the ethical code in the current times. And of course, to convince the people of this correct implementation.
Btw, the Ayn Rand Institute has nothing to do with her. It was created after her death, and it's extremely pro-Israel and pro-pure-capitalism, and I disagree with most of its ideas.
thanks for bringing this up :-)
This is a very long comment – I think I have to turn it into a post.
Muhammad
Id and ego are just metaphors. Ayn's formulation is closer to accurate for me than distinctions based on that freudian model. Acts aren't selfless because we can't act other than through our selves. One can describe acts objectively as benefitting one's own physical reality or anothers more or less, But subjectively, as satisfying wants or desires, it's really all semantics.
ReplyDeleteIf you hand me a Benjamin and you tell me you did it because you are jesus or you did it because you say it made you feel like jesus, what's the diff and who can measure?