Reflections: Anthem

I thought my days of reading Ayn Rand were behind me. But a good friend recommended this book as a “gentle” version of Ayn Rand. I couldn’t resist reading a book that received such a rare adjective about Ayn Rand!

Everybody is familiar with Rand’s philosophy. This book espouses the same principles of Objectivism. But since it’s a novella, it’s short and effective in succinctly conveying the crux of her philosophy. The setting of the book is reminiscent of George Orwell’s 1984, and Lois Lowry’s The Giver. Humanity has regressed in the name of cooperation, equality, and order. It’s a society that results from an extreme form of Communism that eradicates an individual’s basic rights, freedom, and even identity. Everything is decided by the Council, everyone is forced to be equal to one another, forced to put the collective needs of the society ahead of their own, forced to follow the profession decided by the council, forced to stop thinking independently, etc. What might have been founded to bring about equality to all fellow human-beings is shown to have robbed the very spirit of freedom, identity, progress, and humanity.

The protagonist writes about how he eventually breaks out of the shackles of this society to embrace freedom. He discovers the meaning of the word “I” and connects with the truth that the individual spirit needs to be revered and followed, not ignored and bent to someone else’s will.

In principle, I do agree that the human spirit should be celebrated, appreciated, and respected. Self-interest is a key component of progress - both individually and collectively. It makes no sense for an Utopian world of complete equality between human-beings to exist, for all of us are different, and will remain different. A homogeneous world of equality is unnatural. And it’s absurd for socialistic principles that try to equalize quality of life for all, to turn civilization into the very opposite of their beliefs. It’s like morality and moral principles punishing the innocent. Everything makes sense in principle. But when they are executed literally, and taken to extreme forms, they all fail and end up resulting in a condition that contradicts the very same principles in the first place.

I dread such stifling forms of socialism or communism where basic individuality and freedom is lost. But, I also dread extreme forms of capitalism where basic compassion is lost. I think a similar dystopian story can be written about the disintegration of human civilization due to extreme capitalism, ego, greed, and callousness. In extremes, every principle and theory fails and reverts to its antithesis.

Every aspect of Nature’s design has a delicate balance of cooperation and competition. This balance is supremely vital. From a “selfish” standpoint, we all need to think of our fellow human-beings and care for their welfare as much as we need to honor our own independence and will. Neglecting one over the other will not work. Human society will not progress in either extremes.

This is a good introduction to Ayn Rand for those of you who would like to ease into her philosophy :). I am always impressed by her vociferous, passionate words. She writes with so much conviction and confidence. Her words are great motivation when we need to summon the courage and confidence to follow our heart, stand-up for our principles, and express our freedom.

Reflections: The Origins of Virtue

It seems like a long time since I started reading this book. It’s been sitting around me for months together, getting shunned every now and then for another interesting and far more gripping book. And now that I have finally finished it, it feels like I have taken forever to write about it. It’s got to do with two reasons. Ever since I started my other blog on cooking, the novelty of it has been quite compelling. I am fueled to write posts there. Besides, writing out a recipe is far far simpler and easier than all the work required to think and assimilate my thoughts to churn out a post here. Secondly, I started reading this book fully aware that I may not learn anything significantly new. Yet, when it comes to morality, society, and the definitions of virtue, I am willing to read as many repetitive (and non-repetitive) books as possible, in the hopes that I may stumble upon some, novel, interesting trains of thought that would help me internalize and understand these concepts much better.

The basic questions addressed in the book are - When and why did virtues like cooperation and altruism emerge among us?, Are these virtues wired-instincts, or are they nurtured traits?, What is the fine-line between cooperation and competition, between altruism and self-interest? How do virtues serve the interests of the individual, as much as they help our species to survive? So, is man inherently good or bad?

The short answer for why morality, altruism, and cooperation are exalted as virtues is because we need to adopt and embrace these traits for ensuring our survival, and the survival of our genes, and our species. Mankind has achieved so much and has progressed to such heights because our species knows how to cooperate, reciprocate, trade, and divide labor among specialized people. The point is, each virtue serves a selfish purpose - to us and to our species. Reciprocation is our incentive. If there were no reciprocation, we limit the altruistic deeds we do for others. In our scriptures it is called Karma - you receive what you give. So be good, and reap the benefits. We form friendships, enter into marriage, are cordial and helpful to neighbors, family and other smaller circles of our community, in order to reap the benefits of reciprocation and division of labor. We have the ingrained need to be an accepted part of a community, because when hardships strike, we have people to fall back on and help us. But in order to expect such help, we need to offer help as well. And so on... the gregarious, well-connected, socially active person is the most effective survivor. And consider this paradox - when you gift someone, you subconsciously expect something in return at some point. Then, is the person who refuses to accept any gift from friends or family, the most selfish person? For he realizes the debt he incurs by accepting the gift, and hence refuses to accept such burden of reciprocation?

It leads to another paradox. Despite the accepted rationality of practicing virtuous behavior, human-beings are still territorial, and fiercely compete with one another. Why so? It is natural selection’s way of ensuring the fittest, and only the most competent survive. At a micro-level, our genes are selfish. They cause us to fight for them, stand up for them - to ensure their propagation over other kinds of genes. This is one explanation for racial and territorial conflicts. But one can’t afford to be too aggressive to too many people, and too very often. We have the seen the fall of capitalistic giants who have been so caught up with greed and aggression.

We flounder while trying to establish a balance between competition and cooperation. Is tit-for-tat always a good strategy? We need to know when to forgive and when not to. It’s imperative that we don’t get pushed and trampled upon in our effusive need to always do good to others and never expect anything in return. For when we resort to the latter “selfless” mode, we as individuals perish, although we may help to sustain the growth of our species. Basically, it is not “rational” when one chooses to neglect the self.

For most people, selfishness is a negative trait. With that conditioning, sometimes we make decisions that are detrimental to the self. When my good friend told me that I had to do things for “self-preservation”, the whole term was new to me. When we have been taught to ignore the self, to not expect anything in return for our moral duties, it is a radical perspective to pause and consider that everything that has been established, including religion and morality, are essentially to serve a “selfish” purpose - be it from the standpoint of the community or the individual. Survival, is basically selfish. There is no escaping from it. If you have just one serving of food, and you see a hungry, wailing child of a strangers’, and a hungry child of yours, you will invariably choose to give the food to your child. Nature has wired our instincts to first help our blood and genes. If resources are in surplus, then we have the luxury of sharing a small piece of ours with others’, even without expecting anything in return right-away. We have emotions such as guilt, to make us help other non-related members of our species every now and then, because without our community, we are nothing.

But my objective is this - at some point, if I have a child, I want to be able to teach him/her when to be selfish, and when not to be. I want to help him/her understand that self-preservation is as much important as compassion and empathy for others - that one needs to  know when to draw the line and say - “no, I won’t be nice to you”. And I want to make him/her realize when to forgive and when not to forgive.

Our scriptures speak a slightly different language that seems to urge the individual to always help the betterment of the species, while completely ignoring the self. I need more time and wisdom to understand why that is so. Maybe the bigger perspective of propagating our species is much more important than preserving the needs of the individual. But if every individual loses their need or drive to do something for themselves, and have no pressing instinct to preserve the self, won’t the progress of the species grind to a halt as well? How, you ask? Here is Matt Ridley’s talk on his recent book, which touches upon my question.

Digested Thoughts: A thought-provoking book on the rationality and practicality of morality and virtues. There are many more interesting thoughts, such as on the benefits of privatization of property, and the necessity for governments to govern and control our societies.