Two arguments...

A recent talk with a friend left me pondering about something that I always thought was obvious- who decides how I use my intellect (assuming that I have some!!!)? If I have the capability to think and imagine, what use should it be put to?

The discussion led to two strikingly different views- one that said that the decision is completely personal and the other that said that seemingly personal decision is also bound by some social ties.

Let’s assume that I am a thinker and like researching on some topic that happens to be of minimal importance to the society. I have the ability to sit and ponder over such an abstract and complex issue. This means that I definitely have the ability to think about the more worldly issues.

Knowing that the society I live in is still in need of the solutions to its day-to-day problems, that a number of people around me are more in need of the basic primary education, that there are numerous problems about poverty, education and health in our society, I should rather use my energies in trying to figure out a solution to some of these problems, rather than getting into the mysteries of nature, which to a great probability I would never solve. I am bound by a duty to work for those people around me who were not fortunate enough to reach the level where I am and are right now struggling hard to get their next meal. Is it justified that rather than thinking about them, I worry about the black holes up there in the sky??? Had Gandhi continued working as a barrister, we would have not been independent; he would have not been a Mahatma.

And then there is another view.

If designing a telescope for looking at that far off star interests me more than designing an education system for my society, why shouldn’t I do it? It is true that the education system would do more good to the society than the telescope, but does it mean that I am bound to do that. Shakespeare wrote great plays, proving that he had a high emotional quotient. Would he have rather been a social worker than a writer? NO. If forced to do so, he probably would have not been any good; he would have probably reached a mental block and would have been just another man doing something he didn’t want to and not doing what he desperately wanted to. His decision of pursuing what he liked the most and not what the society wanted the most made him a legend and resulted in the beautiful creations that we even after so many years cannot help praising. So why not let everyone do what he or she wants to and allow the collective effect of all these acts move the society.

Two arguments- equally strong- but one has to be wrong. Which one???

A call to that “I” within

This is a review of the book "Anthem" by Ayn Rand. Had written this a Term1 course submission... today thought why not post it???
By the way this is one one of my favorite books (not just because of its size) by my favorite author.

We are… We think… We live…
Our body… Our soul… Our life…

What would my life be if this is how it was to be described? With the word “I” lost, would die all that is within me- my power, my strength, my wisdom, the meaning of my life. These are the thoughts that have been haunting my mind since I read “Anthem”.

Written by the novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand, Anthem is a dystopian fiction taking place in some unspecified future date when mankind has entered another “dark age” after some great war where the collectivists won over the individualists. Through this novel, she has tried to depict what would happen in a society sans individual rights, a society where there is no “I”, just one great “We”. Like her other works such as- The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged etc, Anthem too depicts the struggle between “individualism” and “collectivism”. Anthem has a different style of writing compared to her other works. It is shorter - is often referred to as a novella rather than a novel, and has a parable-like quality. It is written in the form of a dairy entry by the protagonist. The novel is no longer under copyright in the US. In other countries its copyright status is dependent upon the rule of shorter term.

Ayn Rand is best known for her philosophy of “Objectivism” and her writings emphasize the concept of objective reality. She was a staunch defender of individual rights and a proponent of Laissez Faire capitalism. She believed that the state should take a merely defensive role by protecting the liberty of each individual to act as he or she wishes to, as long as he or she doesn’t infringe upon the same liberty of another. She considered man a “heroic being” with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life and productive achievement as his noblest activity. In her words “Man – every man – is an end in himself, not the means to the end of others.”

Anthem starts with the protagonist sitting in a tunnel and writing a diary entry. The first thing one notices is that he refers to himself as “We”, the second thing - his name – rather his label. Our protagonist is called “Equality 7-2521”. This label, like that for all others, is written on an iron bracelet that he wears. The society he lives in is controlled by the will of the Councils which work for “the good of all brothers”. It is a society where all men are treated as equals – absolute equals. When a child is born, he is sent to the House of the Infants just like all others, where he lives till the age of five. Thereafter he is sent to the House of the Students. When he is fifteen, the Council of Vocations assigns him a job which he does till the age of forty. By then he is already worn out and is, as such, sent to the House of the Useless.

This society was born when “many” won over the “few”. After this “Great Rebirth”, people lost all the knowledge, inventions and discoveries of the past, since they were unable to keep what they had not earned. Theirs is more of a primitive society with the latest invention being the candle which was invented only a hundred years ago. When Equality 7-2521, through a series of secret experiments discovers electricity and presents it before the Council of Scholars as a gift to the society, they call this a crime and try to destroy it. They had many justifications for this decision - it would ruin the Department of Candles, would change the lives of so many people, would disturb the stability (read stagnation) of the society. But the real reason was their doctrine that “Everything that comes from the many is good… Everything that comes from one is evil”. What advancement or innovation can take place with man’s individuality strangulated, with no door left open for his creativity? The society can take not a step forward. This reminds me of what Milton Friedman says in his “Capitalism and Freedom” about Newton and Leibnitz, Shakespeare and Milton, Edison and Ford, that “their achievements were the product of individual genius, of strongly held minority views, of a social climate permitting variety and diversity” and not “in response to a majority directive of a parliament”.

Our protagonist is guilty of other things too. He falls in love with Liberty 5-3000, thus committing the transgression of preference. One of my favorite sequences in the book is when the girl tries to express her feelings to him but is unable to, for “We love you” is all that she can say. She feels helpless and frustrated. A simple expression of love made impossible by the absence of one word! I am tempted to quote Howard Roark’s words here – “To say 'I love you' one must first know how to say the 'I'” (The Fountainhead).

The story continues with their search for this word, their search for individuality, and their transformation from Equality 7-2521 and Liberty 5-3000 to Prometheus and Gaea. Prometheus finally declares that "I owe nothing to my brothers, nor do I gather debts from them. I ask none to live for me, nor do I live for any others." He realizes that his self love can never be detrimental to the society; it would rather benefit the same. To me it seems that he somehow realized the truth in Adam Smith’s words that man “by pursuing his own interest frequently promotes that of society more effectively than when he really intends to promote it”. He also realizes that one cannot love everyone, for one honors men with love, and honor is a thing to be earned.

The book leaves an impact on the reader’s mind more ways than one. You find yourself walking with your head held high. You start respecting yourself, believing in yourself, and start cherishing this “I”, and what’s more, you love this change. Ayn Rand is a master when it comes to depicting deep and powerful ideas with ease. She makes you question the oft-repeated bromides about altruism, self-sacrifice, equality of all, and the likes. What is society but a collection of individuals? Then how can one try creating a society by killing these individuals? What should be the role of the government? To what extent should the state be allowed to take decisions on the part of the citizens? Self sacrifice – preached by one and all – what meaning does it have when there is no “self”? And. Above all, is sacrificing one’s self a virtue or a sin? Questions like these and numerous others will change the way you look at the world, the way you look at yourself. The book succeeds in fulfilling its intended purpose.

Anthem is the story of a man’s quest for himself, his existence, his freedom, his ability to say “I will it”. It is the story of a man’s quest for his EGO.