“Ayn Rand
Con 2016: The Experience”
11/4/16,
“Doctor Strange”
Aboard DL
1945, En route LGA-ATL
The Marvel
character Doctor Strange is perhaps the epitome of an Objectivist. He lives his life in accordance with John
Galt’s oath (“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the
sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”) He is a highly successful neurosurgeon,
widely respected by his peers, and he lives a life for his own sake. That is not to say he does not care for other
people, but rather that he understands that he owes no one anything and that no
one owes him anything. He interacts with
others in the way he chooses to, not because he believes society tells him he
needs to do so.
He is perceived as
arrogant by his peers, but his arrogance is justified, since he is never
wrong. He does what he does, not of some
altruistic desire to help people, but because it makes him feel good, knowing
that he is constantly striving towards excellence. Of all the superhero characters, none would
be more deserving of a spot in Galt’s Gulch than Doctor Stephen Strange. As I make my way to Atlanta for the annual
Ayn Rand Conference, I would like to focus a bit on him and how his character
relates to Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism and its views on free will,
which is the topic for this year’s conference.
I would first like to address the constant criticism of Objectivism and
its use of the word selfishness, since it often brings to mind the idea of
someone who abuses other people in order to take advantage of them. That is not selfishness. That is self-destructive behavior. Selfishness is working with other people as
appropriate, interacting with them in a free manner, all the while always
putting yourself first. Doctor Strange
cares very much about his best friend, Doctor Palmer, as we see evidenced by
the value he places on the watch she gave him, treasuring it above all of his
other possessions, not because of its material value as a watch, but rather
because of the love he feels towards her.
That is very selfish.
It is
selfish because it makes him happy to wear that watch. It makes him happy to embrace the way he
feels about her. The very same it is
selfish for him to pursue excellence as a neurosurgeon, because it makes him
happy knowing he is the best neurosurgeon in the world, that it makes him happy
knowing all the lives he’s saved. That
is what Ayn Rand means when she uses the word selfish, and no other word can
takes its place. It is the way I try to
live as well.
This entire Travelogue,
“Where is John Galt”, is about travelling the world in that manner and trying
to live my life in a completely selfish fashion. As a superhero, when the world needs saving,
Doctor Strange saves it, not because of sense of moral responsibility, but
because he is a part of the world, too, and he realizes he is the only one who
can save it. He refuses to make any kind
of deal with the dark lord because he refuses to sacrifice the people of the
world. He will neither sacrifice himself
to others nor others to himself. That is
what it means to be selfish. That is
what it means to be John Galt. Who is
John Galt? Well, in the Marvel Cinematic
Universe, it is Doctor Stephen Strange.
Now, that addresses the moral philosophy, the ethics that make Doctor
Strange an Objectivist, but what about the metaphysics, the view of the world
itself? In that regard, too, Doctor
Strange would have made Ayn Rand proud, but that is also where I find my
biggest disagreement with Objectivism and what I hope to explore at this conference. Objectivism holds that the world has no
mystical properties, that everything must be explained by the laws of science
and nature. Objectivism does not believe
in the supernatural. Why, then, am I
calling the most mystical superhero of all, the quintessential
Objectivist?
Well, it is because of the
way he rejects what he is told when arrives at Kamar-Taj until he is given
empirical proof. Once he is given the
empirical proof of the supernatural, he seeks out to learn the strict laws of
these mystical powers. He reads
everything there is to read about the laws, and then he applies himself to his
training the way we would expect an Objectivist to do. However, he rejects the teachings that don’t
make sense, and, while accepting the new laws of the supernatural that he has
learned, he only acts in ways that make sense to him within the confines of
those laws.
Spoiler alert here. By taking this Objectivist approach, Doctor
Strange is able to become the most powerful sorcerer in the world, even keeping
the dark lord himself at bay as he saves the planet. He does what no one else can do and learns
how to turn back time so that he can fight the battle on his terms, and, in the
end, the dark lord sees no choice but to forsake his attack on the planet so
that he can escape the time loop in which Doctor Strange has ensnared them
both. It is what John Galt would have
done.
Now, why then, does Objectivism
believe in free will? I suppose it is
for a very similar reason that Kant believes in it, in order to allow for moral
theory. If we believe that free will
does not exist, then the moral philosophy of Objectivism becomes
meaningless. However, as Doctor Strange
(before his training) and I would both argue, the world consists of only
material stuff, and that material stuff is controlled by the laws of science
and nature. Every cell, every atom in my
body is controlled by these properties.
Every action I take is the result of how material properties affect the
cells in my body.
Where, then, is the
room for the idea free will, that some mystical entity called the mind can
cause the cells in my body to act in a way that is not subject to the laws of
physics and nature? To argue that the
mind can alter than actions of the body is, in my view, a direct affront to the
most basic ideas of Objectivist’s rejection of the supernatural. That is what I hope to learn this weekend,
how Objectivism can reconcile its rejection of the supernatural with its need
to hold people accountable to its moral philosophy.
Okay, so I will explore those concepts in further
detail as the conference progresses, but for now, I will recount the events of
Day 0. I will actually highlight a bit
the entire week. Since I returned from
the Borderlands just four days ago, it has been a surprisingly good week. On Tuesday, I got Mel Gibson’s autograph on
my Braveheart Blu-ray, which, for years, had been one of my most desired
autographs. It brought my count of
signed Blu-rays of the 1990s Best Pictures winners up to 8 now. That night, I began my Christmas season
rituals by smoking my 2006 Christmas Pipe.
Wednesday night, I got Annette Bening’s autograph on American Beauty,
another 1990s Best Picture winner, and made it home in time to watch what was
possibly the most historic and interesting game in baseball history, the Cubs ending
their 108-year World Series drought, while I smoked my 2007 Christmas
Pipe.
Then, yesterday, more autographs,
including none other than Viggo Mortissen, King Elessar himself. That was the night I saw Doctor Strange with
my friend, us doing our traditional dinner and movie night, eating way too much
food, smoking cigars, and then seeing a movie.
Instead of our usual pizza spot, we instead went to Brother Jimmy’s
BBQ. It was glorious. The movie, in addition to providing the
material for this entry, was a delight.
I woke up this morning with no appetite, still full from last
night. I had packed last night, once
more forgoing a suitcase and putting my clothes in my computer bag. After I did everything I needed to do at the
office, I lit up my usual pre-departure Cohiba, went home, got ready, changed
into my suit, and took a taxi to the airport.
I still hadn’t had an appetite yet, having eaten so much for dinner last
night. I started getting hungry as I got
to the airport, and we spent almost more time navigating the traffic at LGA due
to the renovations than we did getting to LGA from my apartment.
After clearing security, I went to the
build-your-own burger place and opted for a double cheeseburger topped with
bacon, mushrooms, BBQ sauce, cheddar, and onion rings, along with freshly fried
potato chips and a seltzer. I went to
the gate and ravenously ate it, completely famished from not having had a bite
of food in 17 hours now.
We were soon
boarding, and I found myself rather tired as we waited to take off. We taxied for quite some time, and I think I
fell asleep, waking up as they announced we had reached 10,000 feet. I then proceeded to write this entry, which I
will now close, as we will soon be making our decent, but I will write again
from Atlanta.
Atlanta,
Georgia
There is
nothing wrong with income inequality. It
is a natural, nay, necessary part of a productive economic system. Equal is unfair! Why?
It is quite simple. Income
inequality is the idea that it is wrong that one person gets a much bigger
piece of the pie than someone else, but that is the wrong metaphor. There is no fixed pie. Instead, each person is free to bake a pie as small or as large as he or she wants and is able. Does the fact that my pie is bigger than yours
mean anything, so long as you have a pie of your own that you baked on your
own? The answer is no, it doesn’t
matter. Me baking a larger pie, so long
as I don’t steal flour and butter from your pantry, does not make your pie any
smaller. The size of my pie does not
affect the size of your pie. It is that
simple, and that is what Dr. Yaron Brook explained tonight in his keynote
speech.
This is the fourth time I have
heard him speak, and it is a real treat each time. In fact, I might even go so far as to say
there is no one in the world I more enjoy hear giving a speech. That said, I always find something on which
to disagree with him, and he always brilliantly answers my question. Tonight was no exception.
When I first met him four years ago, I asked
him how he could possibly advocate a philosophy that believes we have no
obligation to save an animal species from extinction. His response?
Something like 99.99% of species that ever existed have gone
extinct. That fact that we currently
find certain species to be cute doesn’t give us the right to impose
environmental policy. If people so much
love the polar bears, they can buy some land in the north and establish a
privately owned polar bear reserve.
Anyone who hunts polar bears on that land would be committing a crime
against the land owner. That was the
moment when I came to realize that environmental protectionism should not be in
the purview of the government. I should
note that air and water pollution is a specific tort against humans, a tort that
can and should be punished. “Saving the
environment” is distinct from those specific torts.
The second time he was giving a speech
decrying the welfare state, and I inappropriately asked a question about
foreign military policy, which he sidestepped.
The third time, just a few blocks from here, this weekend last year, he
was talking about the archetype of the evil businessman. I asked why Hollywood always tries to get us
to hate the businessman for being a businessman before the movie then always
has him do something illegal, whether violent or fraudulent. Without missing a beat, he explained that the
liberal narrative required us to equate the shrewd businessman with the evil of
violence or fraud, that that would then make it seem like all shrewd
businessmen are evil.
Tonight the topic
was free will. He explained what I
explained above far more elegantly than I ever could. He talked about Warren Buffet and Lebron
James that, while they were very lucky to be born where and when they were and
with the specific skill set that was written into their genetic code, it was
not luck alone that made them who they were.
Cue Dumbledore’s famous line from the second Harry Potter book: “It is
our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.” Yes, our abilities, along with the
circumstances of our birth, play a huge role in shaping who we are, but, like
Dumbledore, Dr. Brook argued that our choices are what make the difference
between Lebron James and all the other people born with his ability. I would prefer to use Michael Phelps. It is not enough that he was born with good
genes. No, he chose to compete. He chose to train in such an intense
manner. Maybe his natural abilities made
him an athlete, but it was his choices that made him the greatest athlete of
all time.
The same could be said about
Doctor Strange. He chose to pursue
excellence. He chose to make himself the
greatest neurosurgeon in the world. He
chose to apply that same work ethic to become the greatest sorcerer in the multiverse. Yes, he had abilities that few others had,
but he chose to follow through on them.
That is why he was entitled to the drawer of watches, the huge
apartment, and the fancy car. He earned
all of that as a neurosurgeon. He built
that, no matter what President Obama might say.
This explains how Objectivism requires free will for its moral
philosophy, and Dr. Brook simply was restating what I said above. On that point, we can all agree. Any moral philosophy requires free will. Otherwise, criminal justice is no different
than shooting a bear for encroaching on a camp site. We shoot the bear, not because we believe it
acted in the wrong, but rather because it posed a danger, a danger that needed
to be abated. That was where I objected
to Dr. Brook.
When it was my turn to ask
my question, I said that he had not offered proof of free will, merely that it
was necessary for Objectivism. He
answered quite simply that he was offering the economic and moral argument for
the recognition of free will and that the philosophers tomorrow would have to
answer those questions. Other students
asked similar questions, including one “technical question” about concepts of
free will, and he always answered the same, even though these were questions
that any philosophy major, including me, could have easily answered.
Then, someone thought it would be a good idea to try and clarify the earlier “technical question” for him, first explaining
the four different types of free will and determinism (hard determinism, soft
determinism, compatibilism, and libertarian free will), at which point Dr.
Brook looked at him in such a patronizing fashion as if to say, “Yes, I know
all of this, but that’s not what I’m here to talk about tonight.” The questioner then continued by offering the
names of two philosophers that he should “look into”, as they offer good
philosophies of natural law. The
questioner sat down, and I thought Dr. Brook would just move on. Nope.
He explained that those two philosophers offer good views on natural law
but that they were at odds in key ways on the Objectivist view of natural law,
and he mentioned a third philosopher of natural law in the process. That’s Dr. Brook for you. Tomorrow, I guess, we’ll hear about the
philosophy of free will.
All right, so I’m
a bit a disjointed here, and I need to get back to recounting today’s events in
their proper order. After I closed on
the plane, we soon landed, and I made my way to the rental car area, which was
a bit of a process. My name was listed
on the board, but, instead of the space number being next to my name, it was
just stars. I had to go the
counter.
The agent said my license had
been flagged, and I needed to call a customer service number to resolve it
before they could rent to me. Customer
service had closed about an hour ago.
Huh?!? I then asked him what I
should do. He kept saying I needed to
call them on Monday and that he couldn’t rent to me until I resolved it. I would be back in New York by Monday. I asked him again what to do, same
response. I decided I would make it
easier for him. I asked him if I should
just go to another car rental company, and he would cancel the rental. He would not answer that. He repeated himself again from earlier. Now I was getting angry. In a sharply measured voice, I told him that
it was a yes or no question and repeated the question. He said he wouldn’t give me a yes or no
answer. It reminded me of the guard from
the end of Atlas Shrugged, when Dagny kept asking him if he would stand aside
so that she could rescue John Galt. He
kept saying he wasn’t authorized to make that decision. Dagny shot him. I asked for his manager.
His manager showed me the screen, saying that
it said DNR (Do Not Rent), and that they couldn’t rent to me until it was
resolved with corporate. I then asked
her what to do, if I should go to another car rental company, and they would
cancel the rental. She said that was
probably for the best. I thanked her for
her help and walked to Alamo. I had a
car 10 minutes later, but it was almost 7 PM now, and the schedule said “Dinner
and Keynote Speech” at 7 PM. I got stuck
in traffic, and it was about 7:30 PM when I got to the hotel.
I went straight in, and I still saw a large
crowd. They were running late, and
registration/check-in was still going on.
Ah, as I’m writing this, Dr. Brook just walked out to get his car from
the valet. Okay, so I got my free drink
and free books, including his new book entitled “Equal is Unfair”. I went into the hall, and I saw desserts in
front of every seat. Wait, had I missed
dinner? I sat down and asked the person
next to me. No, they hadn’t served
dinner. They just brought out the
desserts first. Huh? Well, I had my bread and wine, followed by
half of my cheesecake. Then they brought
out the main course, roast chicken, followed by the rest of my cake.
Then came the moment for which I had been
waiting. Dr. Yaron Brook got up on the
stage for his keynote speech, which I outlined above. After his speech, I took a picture with him,
then went to reception to get my room key.
I went up to my room and had a coffee before coming downstairs, where I
sat outside, lit up my 2008 Christmas Pipe, and proceeded to write this entry,
which I will now close so that I can publish it. Curiously and not by design at all, this was
the exact same Christmas Pipe I smoked here last year. Though Atlanta, Georgia as noteworthy of a
dateline as the ones under which I have previously smoked this pipe, datelines
that included Vienna, Austria and Xi’an, China, it is place that always holds a
special place in my heart.
No comments:
Post a Comment