“I never believed that story. I thought by the time the sun was exhausted, men would find a substitute” – Hank Rearden, Objectivist Hero in Rand’s Atlas Shrugged
Within context, within reason there is nearly always a way to overcome. Continue reading
Don’t ever get angry at a man for stating the truth.” -Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, Part 1, Ch. 10
I have a Stoic philosophy no doubt. This philosophy has had a tremendous influence on my view of life, and how I cope and prosper with the existence that I have. So much is out of my control, and it is certain that I will have sadness and tragedy in my life. In the end, I will be dust.
If all will be lost, if all will be forgotten, then why not just give up? The short answer is that to give up is contrary to nature. How do I know this? Well, keep in mind that I am not a Stoic zealot, nor am I a one-trick pony, oh no. I could find plenty of explanation of why it is my duty to compete in this wrestling match called life within Stoic philosophy, but a more direct, incisive path to an answer is through objectivism. Through my own reason, using the template of objectivism, I see that to produce and to do so with excellence, is virtuous.
Objectivism is the philosophy espoused by Ayn Rand. While her novels and essays are extensive, she is best known for her novel, Atlas Shrugged, and this novel is an allegory for how to live according to this philosophy. The more you read about Rand’s views and her philosophy, you can see how she became so controversial, and so reviled by many. The uncritical ear, make that the average mind numbed by all the mainstream smoke and mirrors found in our society, did not like to hear what Rand had to say. To this day, her philosophy remains outside the mainstream…mostly something to be examined, but not adopted among the elite intellectuals. Accepting the details of what Rand has to say is difficult for the uneducated, or even unopened mind, for the philosopher who has not taken the time to think things through. In many ways, this is similar to how the Stoic philosophy is viewed…a philosophy to be considered, not a way to live. As for me, I’ll take the “road less traveled” (thanks to Frost).
Photo by Dez Pain
Rand’s philosophy basically has four parts, which can be found here in her own words. I will extract the four parts as I understand them:
So what does this mean in deciding “how to live?” Well, all of my actions should be for my own self-interest if I am living according to what is natural; in essence, they are for my own survival. This is the state of nature, it is what keeps you alive, it is what makes you prosper. Facts are facts, wishing it were some other way will not make it true. We use our faculty of reason every day to decide what is good for us and what is bad. We decide every day whether to help someone, whether to ask for help, and what that help is worth. We do this as a survival mechanism. Each of us has special talents, and each of us can nurture those talents to leverage them for our own survival. We can trade these talents for ones we are not so good at.
Imagine the value of garbage collection…it is a virtuous endeavor (“Photo: JohnNyberg, rgbstock.com”)
When I perform a task that I have mastered, presumably it helps others. For this service, others provide tasks at which they excel, in kind. In modern society, this “service” (or product) is generally transferred through some kind of monetary payment. Currency is an easier way for people to trade goods and services. My duty then, is to perform a task to the utmost of excellence for its own sake…for my own sake…this is essential for my survival. This is how I survive…because others value the task that I perform. If my task is not valued, then I will receive little payment. If my task is highly valued, then I should EXPECT payment. I will not perform my service for free, because this is unnatural, and is contrary to my survival (acting contrary to survival is essentially, the definition of altruism). In the long run, I must provide value to my fellow man, so they will provide value to me. Also in the long run, for me to expect a return from those who receive my product is perfectly natural, and thus moral. Unless I plan to survive on my own in the wilderness, that’s the bargain. If I wish to have wine, then I either make it myself (which I cannot) or provide the winemaker with something he needs (albeit indirectly in today’s modern society…through exchange of money), so that he will give me his wine in trade.
In a natural state, all of this should and would be voluntary. The part that so many don’t like to hear in Rand’s philosophy is that this is all driven by self-interest. What they miss is that self-interest does not mean selfish. In fact, what they miss is that cooperation is built into self-interest. I’ve written about the false philosophy of altruism before, but the heart of the matter is that our motivations, our relations, our morality…all of it, is driven by each of our own self-interest. In a moral society, everybody has a role, and everybody contributes…for their own survival. I must emphasize that this participation must be voluntary for it to be moral; otherwise, somebody is a slave to somebody else…somebody is a slave, and somebody is a freeloader/slavemaster…somebody is expecting something for nothing. In essence, freeloaders (called “looters” by Rand) are performing the worst kind of immorality. The ones who enable the freeloaders, the so-called altruistic and the collectivists, are the slavemasters and they might even be worse. In an unnatural state, the slaves are those who pull their weight, but have their products forcibly removed from them by the looters and slavemasters.
To survive, yes even to flourish I must provide the highest value product to my neighbor. I must do this because I need what my neighbor has to offer. To be virtuous is to live according to nature, and nature demands that I do my part before I take. That is why I don’t just give up, even in a state that is currently unnatural. My job is to enlighten about what IS natural and to act that way regardless of externals. That is why I wrestle!
“Adorn thyself with simplicity and modesty and with indifference towards the things which lie between virtue and vice. Love mankind. Follow God.” –Marcus’ Meditations Book 7
In this case, Marcus Aurelius wants to stress to himself that to be simple and modest is best. As for the things which “lie between virtue and vice,” maybe we really don’t know it all. Maybe we don’t know the answer. We all have our judgments of right and wrong, but maybe we should stop judging, at least a little bit. Sometimes, we might just be better to just breathe…to just “be.” Don’t judge, like we always do as humans…just exist, take a breath, take several breaths. Be like the stone at the bottom of the river and let the water flow over you, and just be there and exist…not judging.
Take some time, and just be.
When you’ve mastered that, then love everything around you (especially “mankind”). Sometimes this is hard to do, no? ALL of mankind? Really, really try. Don’t hold back. Love all of mankind. All that is happening now, is meant to happen. The good, the bad, and the ugly. It is all under the auspices of the cosmos, our divine existence.
Young or old…
Be good to yourself, be good to those close, be good to those beyond (me, we, they…).
Who am I? I have had many roles, and continue to have more…too many in fact. Here are the ones I can think of:
But these are just roles I play. There were times in my past when I wanted some of these to define who I was. Occasionally, I still latch on to one of them and think, “that’s my calling, that’s who I am?” However, none of these roles are who I am in entirety. I am all of these and none of them all at the same time. When someone asks me, “what do you do?”, it’s a tough question. I do a lot. If someone asks me “who are you?” (which they never do), then what is the answer? It’s an even tougher question; or is it?
What role will I play today?
I am at a point in my life where I am defined by no one thing. This is a good thing, I think. I have been headed in that direction for some time now. In the past year, since I retired from military servitude, I have had much more time to explore and dive into things that I like and do things that are more productive. I don’t have goals, so much as I have themes (I stole the “themes” theme from James Altucher: see more). My themes are simple, yet my means seem to be surprisingly complicated. Every time I write down the themes I wish to pursue, they come down to these three:
I will readily admit that these three themes necessitate a grasping of this world. However, I always try to remember that my participation in this world doesn’t necessitate my belief that this participation in it is permanent, or that I will make a lasting impact in much of what I do. I just am, while I try. As a philosopher, I should pursue my themes with some rational detachment. In the end, I will be gone and so will you. The goal then is to just “be,” while pulling your weight along the way. At the end as I utter my last breaths, I could ask myself:
However I can answer these 2 questions, then that is who I am. I hope to answer YES, to both.
PS: I just realized 2 things: 1) This post is like an open journal entry and 2) It comprises bits and pieces of the three influencing philosophies from my life raft.
If you know something is right, if you know that acting a certain way, or even feeling a certain way is the way to maintain your tranquility, then why don’t you do it?
I will get to the point: It is through your will that you can maintain your tranquility. To act according to your philosophy during the most trying of times requires great effort, but to be a person of virtue you must do this. You must, through sheer mental exertion, act how you know you should act!
Here on the site, I write about a philosophical world view that includes being aware of what you can and cannot control, that fate largely determines our future, and that everything is impermanent. You may agree with this view in its entirety or you may disagree with parts or even all of it. Regardless of your opinion on the matter, I do think that living a life of tranquility requires two major steps:
Because it may be where most of us philosophers fail, I want to address that second part today. Assuming you have established some semblance of what is the way to live, then what does it take to actually live according to what you know to be virtuous? Let’s break this down a little. Let’s just take one small example.
In my philosophy, I know that I cannot control the actions of those around me. Occasionally, I am confronted by someone who is a complete jackass.
Picture of a jackass
I don’t mean that they are being a jackass today, but I mean a person who, by the sum of their actions, is a jackass (see definition here). Assuming that I must deal with this person, at least for a time, what do I do? First, I must determine (a) how I act with this person? For my own tranquility though, I must establish (b) how I feel about and because of this person?
(a) I do not return their rudeness, attitude, and demeanor in kind. Some of us may be tempted to do this, but most of us find this step fairly easy to complete, although it does cause us stress. In any case, this is easier than the next part of my reaction to this jackass, and that leads to…
(b) I do not let their action affect my emotion, viewpoint and general attitude of the world around me. This, I think, is the tough part. It is by sheer force of will, by having complete awareness and exerting effort that I execute this very important step and maintain my tranquility and my virtue. In many cases, I may need to maintain my interaction (e.g., a family member, an important client, my boss), so I may need use my mental will constantly. In many cases, you may have the option to discontinue the interaction, and I do not discourage this if you have the option (for example, find a new job, look for new clients, etc.). In any case, you must first decide whether a continued interaction is important to you; then regardless of what you decide, you maintain your tranquility through your own effort.
Sheer Force!
The bottom line here is that tranquility is yours to control, and this requires effort of will. Your philosophy is there for you to use it in the toughest of times, and when these challenges arise you will be required to act according to what you know to be true: that your virtue is maintained by you regardless of external influence.
To act according to what you know to be best is not always easy, but you must do so, no?