Incorrigibleoptimist
Its been more than five decades since Ayn Rand’s Objectivist philosophy gripped the whole world’s conscience. Is Objectivism relevant in this flat, nirvana savvy world? Incorrigibleoptimist finds out.
Few days back I participated in a debate competition on the relevance of philosophy. A gal (with whom I had a heated argument on a different issue) who participated spoke about objectivism in detail and brought me back vivid memories during my college days when I was so enamored by Ayn Rand’s objectivist philosophy. Despite my spiritual inclinations and religious beliefs, I found myself very much attracted to her philosophy. I remember profoundly the effect Atlas Shrugged created in me. It inflated my personal ego to dangerous levels and made me stand very tall in the crowd. The experience soon turned faddish and it disappeared within few weeks time. Recently, after a long time I grabbed FOUNTAIN HEAD and within no time the book gripped all my attention and I found myself devouring every page of her master piece. It took quite a long time to juxtapose my spiritual beliefs and objectivist ideals I found in the book. After reading the book I decided to see how far in this flat, nirvana savvy world Objectivism stands in its rightful place.
Capitalism, the wise ol’ man smug with contentment over the economic miracle happening at the developing and developed countries alike will definitely owe a major part of his life to the teachings of Ayn Rand. He would definitely paint some sepia tinted memories when the affair began with Alan Greenspan who proselytized from his positivist ideals to objectivist ideals. He would recall with glee how Alan Greenspan co authored several parts of the “Capitalism: The Unknown ideal” along with Ayn Rand in the 50’s. Ayn Rand in the book firmly asserted that “if one wishes to advocate a free society- that is capitalism, one must realize that its indispensable foundation is the principle of individual rights.” However in the late 90’s, with the technological boom happening, capitalism found a new partner “globalization”. This marriage emerged out the most successful one in the US (I mean.. with divorce rates happening…) Soon several countries re-modeled this marriage in their countries depending on its inherent characteristics (Yes, U heard it right…I am thinking of China).However this marriage ruthlessly disconnected the umbilical cord with objectivism. The mutant genes of objectivism had been successfully embryoed within capitalism and the roots of the objectivism had been mercilessly cut off. This was essential as globalization depended on networking of MNCs, countries and individuals alike. How could objectivism allow this concept of men working together from various continents for the betterment of their lives? Isn’t this a dormant form of collectivism camouflaged in a seemingly innocuous way? Alas, Capitalism with its new partner didn’t bother much about these mumblings of the defiled nymphet of Objectivism. She has lost her sheen now, thrown out and left to scream in the mahogany almirahs of depopulated libraries.
One of the most unacceptable parts of Objectivist philosophy to me has been this desecration of this seemingly innocuous word Altruism. After reading the book, I suddenly started to empathise for Altruism just as I did for Machiavellianism when I learnt quite a lot about the genius behind THE PRINCE. If Niccolo Machiavelli would resent at the world for making ‘Machiavellian’ super bad, then Auguste Comtec, the French philosopher who coined the term Altruism would probably cry aloud like those Indian TV serials’ Moms at Ayn Rand for desecrating the word Altruism. Ayn Rand contended that altruism is an act of self sacrifice. It could only destroy the self. I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH THAT. Leaving aside the moral and religious obligations for a while; I can truly assert that being altruistic is the most selfish of all acts, the reason being that when you help someone you don’t lose your own definition of self. You rather accentuate your image of self when you help someone who has come with shards of personal ego. As I am writing this I am getting nostalgic of my school days. I remember teaching Tamil and social science to few of my friends in my school basket ball ground. It gave me a mild unidentified sense of pleasure to see my friends listen religiously to every piece of information I gave. It gave me some sense of my personal identity when I reached out and connected with others. Altruism has several medicinal properties. I speak this truly from my personal experiences. Many times whenever I felt bad about myself, I simply stretched myself and try to help someone in a very small way I can. This extension of my individual self to others easily lifted me out of the bad uneasy feeling I had over myself. This can be suggested as nice way to de stress oneself.
However, things would come into light better, when one looks at the circumstances which led Ayn Rand to conceptualize Objectivism. Her father’s pharmacy shop was ransacked by the Bolsheviks. Her high school days were marked with intense fighting during Bolshevik revolution. Her family had to flee to Crimea. Her disgust at Altruism could have risen from the struggles and hardships she had to face under Communist Rule.I remember reading Nehru’s observation about India in the book India: Midnight to Millenium by Shashi Tharoor. He rightly pointed out that India has been a palimpsest throughout the ages, absorbing various schools of philosophy in itself and evolving from time to time. Similar metaphor can be applied to Objectivism. Objectivism also has stood the vestiges of time and has also been bent and twisted according to the dictates of time. However it still holds enormous appeal to people in the present generation who still find it inspired by the philosophy to avoid leading second hand lives and find true meaning of the self. It hardly matters whether one takes the spiritual route or follows her path to the ultimate realisation of self. Only the destination matters. The path doesn’t.
I think you have made a basic mea culpa as to the word altruism and what Rand asserted about it. If “reaching out” to others is what brings you happiness, then it is NOT altruism. Altruism is giving up and/or sacrificing a value or something that brings you enjoyment in life and substituting something not fulfilling or satisfying in its place.
I have seen this misinterpretation of Rand before and it never ceases to amaze me at the misinterpretation. It’s similiar to calling the United State’s a democracy, when in fact it is not….it’s a republic (i.e. representative government). Words MEAN something…and it’s critical that we utilize them correctly.
America is surely joining the rest of the world in it’s lack of scholarly definitions and interpretations.
The worker bee is a cliche’d example for altruism. It gaurds the queen bee and drones. When it stings an enemy, it dies – self sacrifice. How could we call this altruism selfish? May be selfish in terms of it’s community but not itself which is as good as saying not selfish.
Hey Robert..Thanks for your comments..
Well I agree with your definition for Altruism. But it all starts with reaching for others. The definition for Altruism says that it is the practice of unselfish concern for others.. However one can never find unselfish concern. So called ’selfless’ concern works only in the premise of a selfish concern to be selfless.
absolutely right Mr.Incorrigible..ayn rand’s philosophy is highly appealing and dangerously contagious..and there is no such thing called selfless action. I believe every action of ours is guided by a selfish purpose..as they say in our spiritual texts that the purpose of all actions by all beings is ‘Ananda’, the eternal happiness. although happiness in this material world doesnt last too long, nevertheless the tenets remain the same. we need to satisfy ourselves to keep going. there is no action that is completely selfless! every action has a fruit attached that we desire to achieve.
boy o boy Mr. Incorrigible hits the nail right! i had the same feelings and i wrote quiet a lot a few years ago, but then it was too old to be published! LOL!!
cheers mate!