Rand, Jobs, Rachmaninoff, Strauss

The other day I watched a BBC documentary that featured Ayn Rand. All of a sudden I saw her in a different light. She was interviewed by Mike Wallace in 1959, who asked her about Objectivism, a philosophy she devised. Her ideas have gathered quite a following, especially among entrepreneurs and business people. Objectivism puts self-interest and profit first, which, as you can imagine, has drawn a lot of cynicism from the other side. But the philosophy is also about self-responsibility and achievement, which is hard to argue against. I also learned that Rand’s favorite building is New York City’s Empire State Building, which she lived near to.

I never thought I was an Ayn Randian. In fact I have often railed against her philosophy because of its selfish, self-centredness and the greed it promotes. But the interview convinced me that in some ways I am a Randian. If loving the Empire State Building makes you one, then I am one. But seriously, it was something she expounded on that made me believe I am one, that the world you see and experience is yours, that you are the centre of it. She didn’t believe that we are just a mere speck in the scheme of things, nor do I.

A few years ago I met a homosexual who said he was a Randian. That sounded contradictory to me because I couldn’t imagine Rand supporting homosexuality. After all, Rand was a conservative, at least that is what was attributed to her. But she was quite a liberal since she wasn’t a traditionalist like most conservatives tend to be. She believed that people had the inalienable right to pursue their own happiness. So this young man was doing just that, standing up for his rights and being proud of his sexual orientation.

Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism is basically a push-back philosophy, a push-back against the existing state of affairs. It’s a counterbalance to the status quo and the inevitable creeping intrusion of the state and government. It appeals to those who are anti-egalitarian. In many ways, though, it will not become the sum-total behaviour of society since its libertarianism is too harsh for all. Moreover, because of its ‘survival of the fittest‘ mentality it would be unrealistic in the broader social context. In total, its laissez-faire, extreme free market principles would be far too harsh and high octane for a society to endure in the long run. The most influence it will have is as a secondary philosophy but one still influential enough to have an impact as an irritant and agitator to the powers that be, which is good since that keeps a economic/political system churning and from atrophying. Its championing individualism and independent mindedness also serves to keep authoritarianism and dictatorships at bay. One redeeming quality it has is that it encourages personal responsibility and achievement, which has the effect of enhancement and pushing the limits of human endeavour.    

As I was writing part of this essay I was listing to Rachmaninoff’s Piano Concerto 3. Earlier I had adapted that concerto as background music for a slideshow I put together about New York City, a montage that features many pictures of the Empire State Building. So it came to me that perhaps this concerto was also a favourite of Rand since she too loved that magnificent skyscraper. Perhaps Rand bonded with Rachmaninoff since they both fled their motherland Russia for America in order to freely pursue their own interests. Rand also fancied herself a rationalist. Everything she did, she’d argue, was rational. The Empire State Building’s form exuded a rationality. Rachmaninoff’s concerto is full of rational sensibilities. To my ear this piano concerto embodies the romance and grandeur of that majestic building and the city that surrounds it, which Rand and I both fell in love with because of their dynamism and vitality.

The documentary that featured Ayn Rand also interviewed a couple of entrepreneurs who had a hand in developing ‘Silicon Valley‘ as the center of the hight-tech/intel  industry. Ayn Rand’s philosophy really appealed to them because of what it implied, that as driven individuals they were the forgers of not only their own destiny but were also forces for universal good. With their business savvy they were at the forefront and believed that in their hands was the future of humankind. In pursuing their dreams and own self-interests they were making the world a better place. To put it mildly, they were not only full of themselves but as singleminded as Ayn Rand was. But to their way of thinking that was not such a bad thing since their actions, they believed, were enhancing and elevating civilization to a higher plain. These individuals were really swept up and set alight by Rand’s philosophy, so much so that they even named their children after her.

The day before starting this essay I began reading Steve Jobs‘ biography by Walter Isaacson. As I read it I was reminded of Ayn Rand. As I read Isaacson’s description of him, Jobs was a Randian without even knowing it. With her philosophizing Rand had pinpointed an independent spirit that resides in many of us and a sense of wanting to strike out on our own while ignoring convention. Jobs wanted to be his own person and had little respect for conventional wisdom. He embarked on creating a new wisdom for himself and the world.

Shortly after watch the documentary with Ayn Rand I watched one that included Leo Strauss, who taught political philosophy at the University of Chicago. After viewing the two documentaries I realized that Rand and Strauss were diametrically opposed to each other, even though they were both embraced by conservatives. Even their mentors were at opposite ends, Rand’s was Aristotle and Strauss‘ was Plato.  Rand was suspicious of authority and didn’t view it as essential for achieving  social cohesion. Strauss, on the other hand, believed that some measure of authority and hierarchy was essential for a cohesive society. He viewed religion as a social cohesioner. Rand was an athiest and saw religion as irrelevant and dangerous.

There was no mention of Rand or Strauss in the biography about Steve Jobs. Nevertheless, I found both characters there, in the persons of Jobs and one of his teachers. One of Jobs teachers was John McCollum, an ex-military man who believed in discipline and respect for authority. Jobs didn’t believe much in discipline or authority. Jobs was 

independently minded like Ayn Rand. But Job’s teacher was more in line with the thinking of Leo Strauss and became quite angry when Jobs showed a lack of respect for authority and established procedures.

There was an intensity about Steve Jobs. This was both good and bad as Isaacson explains. Jobs’ intensity was a result of his pronounced bipolar, binary nature. By way of further making sense of this Isaacson quoted the great German mathematician Johannes Kepler, who declared that “nature loves simplicity and unity”. Isaacson added, “So did Steve Jobs”. In other words, Jobs intensity and binary way was like that of Nature’s, creative because of the embracing of diametrically oppose ideas like simplicity and unity(complexity). Though Jobs had a split personality that clashed and contradicted itself, it was the spark plug of creation in him.

The central theme here is binary. It is what Nature, Rand, Rachmaninoff, Jobs  Strauss all have in common. It is what enables computing, through the binary code of 0 and 1. It is critical to the function and development of organisms and systems. Its dual components engender the “invigorating tension” that gives life. Steve Jobs unique binary disposition made him the creative genius he was. Rachmaninoff was able to make music because of his and the binary combination of notes he used to make music. Societies are composed of and function on binary principles, such as the binary engagement of males and females, individuals and groups. Political systems also have their binary combinations such as the diametrically opposed ideas of liberal and conservative. They also have the opposing ideas of Rand and Strauss, one extolling the virtues of individualism and the other of groups.