Genre: philosophy textbook


“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.”

- Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand was once asked if she could present the essence of Objectivism while standing on one foot. Her answer was:
1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality
2. Epistemology: Reason
3. Ethics: Self-interest
4. Politics: Capitalism

She then translated those terms into familiar language:
1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.”
2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it too.”
3. “Man is an end in himself.”
4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”

The basic principles of Objectivism can be summarized as follows: (Instead of quoting the extremely long paragraph in the book, I have taken it upon myself to present it succinctly, for easy understanding.)

1. Metaphysics: Reality that exists in the world is independent of man’s consciousness, of any observer’s knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears. Facts are facts, and things are what they are and man’s task is to perceive reality, not to create or invent it. Objectivism rejects any belief in the supernatural, and any claim that individuals or groups create their own reality.

2. Epistemology: Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses, it is man’s only means of acquiring knowledge. Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge), and it rejects skepticism (the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible).

3. Human nature: The exercise of reason depends on each individual’s choice. That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call ‘free will’ is your mind’s freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom. This freedom is the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and character. Objectivism rejects any form of determinism, the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control (such as God, fate, upbringing, genes, or economic conditions).

4. Ethics: Rationality is man’s basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are: reason, purpose, self-esteem. Man – every man – is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life. Objectivism rejects any form of altruism – the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society.

5. Politics: No man has the right to seek values from others by means of physical force. Men have the right to use force only in self-defense and only against those who initiate its use. Men must deal with one another as traders, giving value for value, by free, mutual consent to mutual benefit. Objectivism rejects any form of collectivism, such as fascism or socialism as well as the current ‘mixed economy’ notion that the government should regulate the economy and redistribute wealth.

6. Esthetics: Ayn Rand described her own approach to art as ‘Romantic Realism’ – romantic in the sense that she presents men as they ought to be; realistic in the sense that she places them here and now and on this earth. Her novels are not didactic but artistic – the projection of an ideal man, as is exemplified by Howard Roark, John Galt, Hank Reardan and Francisco d’Anconia as an end in himself, not as a means to any further end.

And what do I think?

Human nature: Objectivism rejects any form of determinism, the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control (such as God, fate, upbringing, genes, or economic conditions). This I AGREE with WHOLEHEARTEDLY. I totally hate people who complain that they can’t do this and can’t do that, this isn’t possible and that isn’t either because they are….

Poor, not well-educated, weak, tired, too busy, not given the opportunity, their superiors don’t like them, don’t know how to bootlick, don’t know how to speak well, aren’t extroverts… and all kinds of crap excuses. Actually I also get the himbygibbies (refer to the movie ‘Madagascar’) when I hear people say. ‘I passed my exams, thank Lord’, ‘I’ve been cured from the addiction to computer games. Thank God for that.’ Personally, I think it’s ok to ‘thank Lord/God/Allah’ (whichever faith you belong to) for matters concerning life and death rather than for really frivolous issues as mentioned above.

Ethics: objectivism rejects any form of altruism – the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society.

I used to believe that the greatest love is to sacrifice something precious to myself. I used to want to grow up into a person who’d do everything for the people around me… and that was one of the reasons why I chose medicine. I thought that if I could bring happiness to others, I would be happy. But now, I don’t really think I could be happy if I only lived for others and not for myself.

Then again, the issue of morality, who was the one who talked about morality initially? Confucius? I have to question the essence of morality, who determines what’s good and what’s bad and why should we live by the rules? (incidentally, this is the title of a book by Dr Michael Shermer – The science of good and evil: why people cheat, gossip, share, care and follow the golden rule) that I hope to read soon) I don’t see why I should toe the line if there’s simply no good reason for me to. If something’s not rational, why should be accept it???
A couple of days back, while doing the surveys for medicine elective at the NCC, I met a patient who precisely thought that ‘youngsters of these days are selfish, it’s always me, me, me first. The people who put others before them are gone like the dinosaurs.’ That was the response when I told him why I’d wanted to do medicine.

I’d said: I want to do medicine because it’s my interest, and because through it I can bring some comfort and improve the quality of life of the patients. My emphasis is not on saving the world because I don’t think it’s possible. And I feel that having a passion for medicine will drive me to do what I can for the patients.
AND HIS REPLY IMPLIED THAT I WAS ONE OF THOSE SELFISH YOUNGSTERS. I don’t deny that, as I’d said before, if I were to say: I’m doing medicine because I want to ‘save the world’ (I’m quoting him here), I’d be asking my patients for moral blank cheques, which is such a hypocritical thing to do. I’m not going to do something that will make me feel ‘cheap’ at the end of the day.

His view is extremely unrealistic. In this world everything I feel should be based on mutual exchange, even the healthcare system. Even more so since patients are beginning to treat doctors as service personnel. They demand for good service, we charge them for it. Isn’t it a fair exchange? Afterall, haven’t we paid so much to get a medical education? (so much for the Hippocratic oath)

MY MOTTO IS: Do what you like best and do it well.

Regarding this ‘mixed economy’ notion, (correct me if I’m wrong), doesn’t it sound like Singapore’s system? Not having studied economics, I have absolutely no idea if Rand’s right, or rather, if her view is feasible, if it’s too idealistic? If we were to have purely capitalism, wouldn’t that widen the gap between the rich and the poor? Yet again, would that matter? It might matter if a country’s taken as a whole, the GDPs compared and so on… but if I put it in the view of Objectivism, this means nothing. Who cares whether a country’s rich or poor? Haha… it sounds selfish doesn’t it? Hehe, but then again, what’s the point of a selfless world?