In one of her most famous novels, Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand writes, "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." The theory of Objectivism, which she expresses in both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, consists of the notion that reality exists exclusively from consciousness and the purpose of life is based on an individual's happiness and self-interest; nothing is more important than what is desired by a particular individual. Objectivism seeks is ascertain the importance of individualism.
As I read further on into the theory of Rand, I was reminded of an author I recently discovered named Jonah Lehrer. Lehrer is an American author who recently published the book How We Decide which focuses on the decision making process and the intertwining of rational and emotional thought. While Rand believes that reason and logic are they key to surviving the world in which we live, Lehrer takes a different approach. He sees the connection between the rational and emotional brain and how difficult it can be to separate these two. Making decisions is not based solely off of rational thought -- emotions almost always come into play, whether we are conscious on the effect they have us or not.
In his interview on the consistently funny Colbert Report, Lehrer discusses how emotions commonly affect rational thought. He uses the example of the pilot who recently managed to crash land a plane full of people into the Hudson River and survive the incident with zero fatalities. Lehrer points out that if he had let his fear make his decisions than the "miracle" on the Hudson would have had a much more disastrous outcome. Learning to control our emotions is a pinnacle part of making rational decisions, but controlling the ones located in our unconscious proves to be chronically difficult.
Becoming the purely rational man that Rand advocates would be extremely hard. I cannot help but think if everyone were to act only for their own best interests, this world would internally combust. There are more reasons for performing certain actions than because it's what you want. The people that are important to our lives have to come into the equation sometimes. I'm not saying that we should only do what others want, but I firmly believe that a person cannot survive by being concerned with themselves and no one else.
Ever since I discovered the work of Lehrer literally 48 hours ago, I've been researching his views and scouring over old entries from his blog. I just stumbled upon an entry which contemplates the process of watching a movie, a topic I automatically connected back to this class. While he focuses more on recent films, such as Pulp Fiction, which offer a distorted, incoherent take on film making, I couldn't help but laugh when he writes, "this, after all, is why people go to the movie theater: for release, for a 120 minutes of cognitive vacation." If anything, Cinematic Modernism has not been a cognitive vacation. Many people watch movies simply for the pleasure aspect, but we've managed to analyse and pick apart films until they're merely bones. We're doing our best to act as Rand wanted us to and strictly use the rational sides of our brains to determine what these films are trying to say. But it's hard to look at these films from an objective viewpoint -- almost all films will elicit some kind of emotional response that will affect our response and interpretation of what's occurring on the screen.
For more from Jonah Lehrer, who I love for his scientific insight, his simple eloquence, and the fact that he has a pretty sweet name, you can visit his blog The Frontal Cortex. Even if you are not in love with all things psychology like I am, I think there's something on there for all to enjoy. Thanks for reading!
