Objectivism Take III

I made a mistake in my first post where in i didnt differentiate between objective reality and the concept of objectivism which has led to some holes in my arguments. In this post, i try to correct that and also put in paper my thoughts and takes on Objectivism and objective reality.

Objective reality in simplistic terms states that reality exists independent of human consciousness. The two laws that govern this are the law of identify (Ayn Rand's A is A) and Law of Causality that states that things act in accordance with their nature. Now, Girish stated the dictionary.com definition of objective reality which is "of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers ". He makes a special note of "observable to everyone", but i differ! The definition states perception and not observance. Perception is different from observing. I believe one can perceive without observing. I believe that reality exists but need not be observed. Critiques of Ayn Rand use this observing logic and the law of uncertainity to argue against this philosophy. Einsteins theory of relativity was not proven in his lifetime that is why it was a theory, we also know that because of chaos theory and the uncertainity principle, systems are unpredictable in the long run and actually uncertainity theory also fails at a point.

Objectivism encompasses the four principles of objective reality, epistemology, ethics and politics. Objectivism, which is based on the preseumtion that objective reality exists states that given that objective reality exists, one must use reason in determining and understanding and acting upon that reality. While we know what is reality, we use our perceptions and reason to understand and act upon this reality. This perceiving and reasoning is termed epistemology. Now the issue is, in an utopia such as the world created in Atlas Shrugged, everybody has a similar background and hence the perception would be the same. In the actual world, the perceptions are affected by a lot more factors and no two persons can reason the same way. This is due to what we term as priori knowledge. Our perceptions and reasoning are affected by this priori knowledge which can be culture, background, geopolitics u name it...

About Ethichs and Policits, I do not want to get into the discussion of ethics because that is a different pot in itself, however objectivism talks about individual rights and capitalism which are under the purview of politics. Maybe i went to an extreme in Girish's arguments of regulation. The market today is definitely not a totally free market. Regulators exist everywhere with laws such as anti trust, anti monopoly and anti competition and you have WTO on top of this to regulate exactly the same conditions that have arisen in the chip market. However i agree with girish that all these do not co exist in the perfect way because of ethics and one other factor which is geographic boundaries that restrict movement of labor while allowing movement of trade of goods and services. Another aspect is the concept of ethics. In Objectivistic ethics, each individual considers self interest as the prime mover. In the utopia one must differentiate between good self interest and hedonistic self interest. If we take the VCs who dont fund a great new chip design, they are doing so because their ethics system is run by that which creates more value for me versus that which promotes the concept of human life, whereas in Utopia, people believe in the latter. This rarely happens in real world leading to situations in todays world where capitalism is becoming evil with concentrations of power. I do agree with girish that such a perfect world would never happen however i might want to glorify objectivism.

My take is neither theory is proved that is why they are still a theory. However, for me a simplistic concept of A is A doesnt need much observing. Reality is A is A! And everyone can agree on A being A in this world because this is independent of the mind. And decisions made on good "objective reasoning" always never fails. I rest my case stating that objectivism has some very good concepts to lead ones career by and in my 29 years of existence thus far, havent found a better philosophical outlook to practice or believe in when it comes to my career in business.

Objectivism and Objective Reality - Take II

Since me and my pal Girish seem to be doing some intellectually simulating discussion (atleast for us) i decided to post these on the blog here. and since this "free" world is becoming more of a "watch what you say or be sued" world (more about freedoms regulated by governments vs freedoms regulated by litigative societies in another post), i better put a disclaimer stating that this blog and its entire content is my and my friends view and by reading our views the readers are exonerating us of any liabilities what soever even if it means u are going to get a heart attack after reading my probably lousy arguments.

Now to get serious .. Girish has the following responses to my previous post.. I will provide my arguments in a third post later today or tomorrow..

1. "Objective reality exists but this reality exists for each person and not as a whole" --- this is essentially subjective reality. When each man has his own reality, then it becomes subjective -- it is objective only as long as everyone agrees with it. Objective reality is by definition common to everyone. Here is the definition from www.dictionary.com -- "of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers (objective reality)". It is *independent* of individual thought, and observable by everyone. So, when you personalize reality to each person, it immediately becomes subjective.

2. Economics is nothing but applied mathematics. If you agree that objectivity is debatable in mathematics, then it follows that it is also debatable in economics. Of course, you can always find problems in math, physics and economics that is generally accepted to be solved (ie. objective reality exists), but when you get in deeper, you will always come across unsolvable problems. In economics, consider game theory. I believe that most problems in game theory are inherently intractable (i.e., the same problem as exists with P vs. NP). Another recent advance in economics is the concept of "auction theory" (closely related to game theory) -- this is being used for determining the best strategy for placing bids on e-bay, say. Given all the parameters of such a problem, you can still not determine the optimal bidding strategy despite the fact that there are no unknowns.

3. Good observation on deconstructing objectivism in the human realm.

4. Kanags, you have completely misunderstood my take on capitalism. I said " but have my reservations about perpetuating status quo once it has performed its function of uplifting the economy", but you interpreted this as "capitalism shall prevail until there is the government has filled its coffers and then the government will sieze the assets and make the enterprises a function of the state". You should know better than anyone else that capitalism (in its purest form) does not fill up government coffers. Secondly, the negation of capitalism does not automatically imply communism. There is a large continuum between pure capitalism and pure socialism (although nobody has witnessed pure socialism as envisioned by Marx). Think of it this way --- the problem with any economic model is the concentration of power. When power is concentrated, it is almost sure to be misused and abused by the power-wielders. Yes, there are good samaritans but it is hardly sustainable across multiple generations. This is the inherent failure of communism and socialism (including the model envisioned by Marx) -- government by definition has complete control over the economy in socialism, meaning that they have all the power. Socialism assumes that the government is always benign if it is democratically elected -- we know how naivety in this. As history has shown, this cannot sustain itself. When a country is poor, capitalism works very well. In part, this is also because in a poor state, there is a notion of a "level playing field". Why? Because in essence most people are poor to start with -- there is not much (if any) of an income gap. In this atmosphere it works very well. But, after a few generations, the class divide (as I talked about in my review), and as pointed out by Sebastian Mallaby in a Washington Post Op-ed article begins to open social cravasses. Concentration of wealth starts to become noticeable. A century later, the problem just becomes chronic -- it is a well-known fact that more than 70% of USA's economy is controlled by less than 20% of the population (I may have got the exact numbers wrong, but they are something like this). Thus, with prolonged capitalism, economic control and thus *power* gets concentrated amongst these capitalists --- this situation is as bad as communism which is nothing but a state monopoly. A quintessential example of this fact is the chip fabrication industry. It is a well known fact that literally nobody today can raise enough capital (no matter how many VCs he knows and how well he knows them) to either buy or to start up a chip fabrication plant. The players in the field today, Intel, AMD, etc will essentially control this sector of the economy for a *long* time to come. The change is already evident -- Apple is now switching to Intel as well (IBM is out of the game already). This has consequences already -- it is a well-known fact amongst computer architects that the microprocessors we use are not the best design that has been discovered (in other words, you could have faster and less-power-consuming processors, but you don't because of this reason). In fact, go to a Comp. Arch. symposium and the leading researchers will scorn at Intel's architecture. Why haven't these ideas survived to the market? Because Intel or AMD didn't envision them. They had enough market and economic arm power to resist these ideas from entering the market. Think ten years back -- there were at least 2 more uP companies - DEC and Compaq -- today both are gone. This is my point -- concentration of economic power -- whether in the government (in communism) or amongst a select few industrialists (in sustained capitalism) is not good. What I am suggesting is regulated capitalism. Let it be a little a less free market. The problem, of course, is who regulates this market? The regulators will in turn gain power, which is what we wanted to avoid in the first place. The ideal solution is where nobody can arm-wrestle the market. So, when I say "reservations about perpetuating status quo", I do not mean a return to communism, but a regulation of capitalism. I do not know how, and I am almost positive (call it the "Girish Conjecture" ;)) that we will never know the best (perfect) economic model as we do not know the perfect bidding strategy in e-bay or game strategy in 'go'.

Objectivism and Atlas Shrugged

I read this book for the first time when i was 18 years old. At that age (circa 1994) when i was discovering myself, india had just been liberalised and i had just closed a chapter where i told my dad much to his chagrin that i am not keen on being a beaurocrat in the IAS or IFS or IPS, Ayn Rand's take on objectivism and capitalism did make a huge impact on me. They were like for me a guiding light to someone who didnt know what he wanted to do. I didnt know much about any other philosophies and thoughts that were existing and this one seemed to fit into my world quiet easily. Maybe because i had always been proud of the fact that i am mostly rational, highly egoistic and wanted to make money.

I continued reading Ayn Rand. Read Fountainhead, we the living, the anthem, virtue of selfishness to name a few through my college days..I made up my mind i will be a capitalist, i will be rational and will follow this theory of objectivism

Few Years passed, I read more, varied subjects and i experienced life...which has some of the the most important lessons, and i started thinking about objectivism and Ayn Rand's philosophies. I re-read Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead and the rest of the books when i was 25 before i decided to do my MBA. and this time i was not fanatic about her philosophies. I realised that she talks about an utopia, and most people who do not agree with capitalism and believe that business around the world are incarnations of the devil are another.

I have had multiple discussions, heated arguments about her thoughts with my friends one of whom is Girish who has written a wonderful essay and review about his views on Atlas Shrugged. You can find them here . Although I agree with a lot of his statements, i disagree on a few things.

1. Objective reality exists but this reality exists for each person and not as a whole. The problem is each ones perceptions of reality is different leading to different outcomes. This perception as Girish points out could be common only in defined sciences like Physics or Mathematics and even there its still under discussion. But he misses out one science - economics. Economics is purely based on objective reality. Demand and supply is objective, they are given, everyone knows about these, we have a good enough judgement of how much ptable water there is, how much non polluted air there is, how many barrels of petrol there are etc etc also we all know who needs these. The knowledge is common and is the reality. Demand and supply are always on the two sides of a scale, and in a given world with a given set of resources which everyone knows and shares economics defines the laws of demand and supply and the science behind how to use the resources in an effective way. Ignoring this one will definitely question why capitalism and objectivsm go hand in hand..

2. objective reality in a human relationship is an overkill and i agree with Girish's arguments. The primary reason i do not believe in objective reality as common across all humans is because of the concept of perception. Objectivsm itself defines three axioms : existence, identity and the third one is Consciousness. here consciousness is defined as the faculty of perception and this is never the same across two human beings and this is why one cannot have a common reality.

3. objectivism is basically ones own understanding of reality based on his perceptions rather than understanding of reality based on others (such as relegion) or understanding reality based on matters of personal preference (subjectivity). I honeslty prefer an objective outlook rather than a subjective one or that is defined by relegion or other doctrines

4. Capitalism: I agree with Girish on everything till he comes to the part where he says " but have my reservations about perpetuating status quo once it has performed its function of uplifting the economy". I believe he has failed to understand the concept of free market and a moral and ethical society here. I am interpreting this as "capitalism shall prevail until there is the government has filled its coffers and then the government will sieze the assets and make the enterprises a function of the state". Isnt that what communism did, isnt that what india did with nationalising.. In what way is it just and ethical to take from a man that he has created. Isnt this action that of curbing my freedom. An enterprise is a creation isnt it? Why would you want to take ownership opf something that i created? I would prefer to continue my arguments after i hear from Girish what he meant by his statement.

till then viva la capitalism!!!!

Chores...

there is one chore that i hate the most and that is pressing my clothes. It is such a boring job that i always usually procrastinate or outsource it but then it has been 6 months since i had a maid and i had a pileo f 40 clothes lying on the table waiting to be pressed. Over the past 6 months all i did was press a pair of shirt and pants in the morning everyday but then this saturday i decided to clean up my act.

so after spending about 40 minutes at the foot reflexology and then getting conned by a salon where i went to get my hair cut, for 40 Singapore dollars, dont even ask..., after buying a new dvd player that can play mp3s and divx apart from a host of stuff, i got back home and vaccumed every corner and then mopped the floor. whew man it is tiring but then i didnt feel bored. Got te dvd player connected to the TV and blasted U2 before i began this most boring job on earth.. finished 30 clothes over 2 hours.. still have 10 more to go....

And the countdown for 2006 happenned in.....

you wont believe it.. it happenned by the beach alongside some cool friends with a glass of champagne and with me as usual on the verge of drunkenhood.

Dec 31 11:30 AM... I hear the cell ringing in the distance.. "nah man.. i said to myself, its just too early to get up and its a saturday anyway and i need the energy to party tonight.. wonder where i am going to go this time.. well arvind aka focu will figure something out", i tell myself and roll over and go to sleep.. wake up after another hour and 30 minutes.. missed call.. from our very own focu.. "why is he calling this early.. does he have a plan".. call him and there comes the volley of words from focu on the other line "Dude.. where the eff have you been.. you have like 5 minutes to get ready, we are catching the cab to Mersing and then a ferry to tioman. the last boat is at 4:30 and we are running it very close indeed.. so get your arse to queens.. do u know where queens st is.. in 20 minutes" time now : 1:05.. I am like.. shitt.. how the hell am i gonna pack in 5 minutes.. but then u must realise i am no girl and i am no ordinary boy either.. am the one and only kanags.. so out comes the overnighter. in goes two jeans, two shirts in all its crumpled state, two shorts, two t shirts.. and hey the underwear.. oh yes the toileteries.. what did i forget.. oh yes the cell phone cable, the spectacle case, oops.. the passport.. socks.. anything else? hmm no time.. the sandals, swimming trunks.. think...think.. what else.. .. well i think am ok.... dress up, close all windows, call from focu.. Addie on the line giving directions where to meet.. lock door, down to the cab in 10 minutes.. time 1:15.. gotta take cab.. luckily cab present.. off we go.. uncle queens street, JB bus stand need to be ther 1:30.. cab wala needs no other incentive than a chance to kill his passenger by overspeeding.. and this time he gets a willing guniea pig.. so off we go.. i reach the stand at 1:35.

And off we go in the cab to Mersing in Malaysia. takes about 3 hours and its 1:40 now. The cab is an old vehicle and the AC takes like 30 mintues to reach a state of "yeah babe i am cool" so we wait bickering about it to each other while the cabbie is busy navigating the busy roads in singapore. Meanwhile, I am like shucks.. i forgot my camera.. after another 10 mintues.. shucks i forgot my books.. another few minutes and shucks i forgot the sunscreen.. well who cares.. i am hungry now havent had a drink since i got up.. well we have to wait till we cross the border. So we get busy filling in the papers. nothing interesting happenned apart from pulling each others legs, and listening to arvind's focussed plans on what he wants to do in the holiday trying to play this game of counting cars that have license numbers ending in a number of our choice (thanks to Pooja who wanted to keep all of us awake)


We crossed the border and after buying a few snacks and water we hit the road to mersing. We had less than 2 hours and 120 kms to hit and the cars were really slow ahead of us and this being a one lane road. And then we all got into this destructive state of mind where each of us tried to figure a way to go faster, i was hoping to get a gun filled with nails to shoot the tires of the slow cab while arvind wanted the road rollers and Pooja wanted to just drive fast... in any case.. time was running out.. the last ferry was at 4:30 and we had to hit the target else a night in Mersing..

As providence would have it we reached on time and the ferry was delayed thanks to tides.. The boat finally left at 5:40 PM. Man it was a speed boat and was a killer. By 40 minutes my neck started hurting bad cos of the choppy seas which made the speed boat fly into the air and land with a huge thud on the water while travelling like at i dont know some X knots per hour.. Reached Tioman at like 7:00 PM. Man the island was awesome the water by the island was crystal clear and had a slight tinge of aqua blue haze. the island was covered with thick tropical forests and this was paradise.. Am not good at describing these things.. u can see photos below

Well the countdown finally happenned by the beach while sipping Champagne and Kisch Wais a german liquer (40% alcohol content 90% proof) with some cool fireworks while "washing the waves and chilling out wishing everyone a Newwy Hep year.." hic.. hic..


Happy New year everyone


Pics at http://www.flickr.com/photos/mailarvi/sets/1725581/