spoiler alert: kung di mo pa nabasa ang fountainhead dont read further,
promise, youll regret reading this......

here are my points of view regarding the novel and Objectivism.

i believe in objectivism on two points: 1. that we are guided by reason, and
2. the prime importance of the individual, the heroics of a genius.

First, we are rational men, guided by our own rational mind, guided by our own
rational thinking. This was proven long ago by the greek philosophers, plato,
Aristotle, and socrates. we dont act like savages because we have brains that
processes mental thought, because of our rationality, we act as civilized
men. Because of Reason we are capable of discerning what is right or wrong,
because of reason, we have a conscience, and because of Reason we have an ego.

Secondly, before Ayn Rand emphasized the importance of the self, of the
individual, before he "thought" of Objectivism, there was Ralph Waldo Emerson
and his idea of self reliance: that man must believe on his own soul, believe
that what is true for one's soul is true for all men, believe on his own
thoughts. HE glorified the individual, valued the iportance of just being
yourself. He said that the independent self-reliant man must go up right and
vital, must chide malice, reprove vanity, reprimand affection, be rough and
graceless to bigotry. Integrity to self obliges one to be overweening, if need
be, to establish boundaries, to put one's claim for integrity before family,
and friends and society, to teach the docrtrine of hatred if love be whining
and pulling. "let us affront and reprimand the smooth mediocrity and squalid
contentment," he writes and not be "decorous sooth sayers."

There is a flaw in ayn rand's objectivism: she insist that if you are not an
egotist/ individualist then you must be a collectivist/ altruist. it makes
sense because if you are not A then probably you are B, it makes sense
mathematically and logically. but what she committed was a fallacy of
omission. she overlooked the possibility that one does not apply to both, in
layman's term: man is presented with three, not just two, choices - a. an
individualist, b. an altruist, c. not applicable. now I see you shout and
scream that all things follow the law of dichotomy, that all things can be
separated and classified in two things only: yin or yang, good or evil, either
you are or you aren't, either you are one of us or you're a terrorist (as GMA
threatened those who opposes her in the war against terrorism)...but here is a
classic example, what if you dont apply, that you are neither for yourself nor
for others? another possibility (i call it a paradox) that is embedded in her
teachings is that you could also be both: an individualist and an altruist (a
hybrid of some sort). but before that, let me state the importance of
altruism, we were savages then..living for himself, living for ones self, but
one realized that in order to survive one must cooperate because one could not
exist with the other. so you help in hunting mammoths, because there is
strength in numbers, and when agriculture was developed, you help plant plants
with your fellow humans. when civilization flourished, who help created the
city, because one is needed in every aspect of city building: providing food
to the workers, providing luxurious items to the kings, making shelters to
thousands of people living in the city, laying the bricks that will become the
foundation of the cities. individuals introduced innovations but it was the
collective who pushed forward, who advanced the civilization...and dont
forget, society was created for altruist reasons (imagine living separately,
without a common heritage, without a common tradition that will bind us, just
imagine how hard it will be. will we be succesful as today? No! because of our
own selfish motives we are divided and never united) and so is language, it
was created by a collective of men in order to understand each other, in order
to transmit information, feelings, ideas. Society and language were never
created by an individual but rather by a group conscious of the common good,
who have deep appreciation and love for humanity. and so are many things were
created because of altruist reasons. If we are into individualism, then
probably we dont have language, we are still savages, just as before, because
of our own selfish nature, because we dont cooperate, we dont collaborate, we
dont work in a collective. Even scientific breakthroughs are considered to be
altruistic in nature because they were discovered for the common good and not
by selfish motives.

for example: if i were a doctor, why would i search for a cure for
aids if i dont care for others who are suffering from the disease. why would i
devote my whole life searching for that cure? because i want to? because it is
my passion and i have no regards for what purposes it will serve in the
future? no! that is hypocrisy in its purest form. The mere fact that you
conducted the research is an admission of the altruistic nature of the
endeavor.

now, the paradox: that we are both individualist and an altruist. I
believe modern society requires everyone of us to be altruistic, whether we
like it or not: we must conform to the norms, follow and believe the popular
philosophy, sidestep mores and taboos, we must because we are social animals,
first and foremost, being a political animal is a close second. we must
protect, we must serve the society because through unity we find strentgh,
through numbers we acquire power. we must work as a collective because through
consultation there would be harmony and peace. And since we are part of the
society that we are still creating and recreating and at the same time
unmaking, we must live to serve others.

But, in this haze of being a collective we must not lose our individuality. we
must stamp it in every work we do, that this was done by ME, I MADE THIS
(CRAP). NOt of vanity, or to announce that you made this and that, but to
acquire space and acquire respect for yourself. you dont stamp your
individuality just to boast but to remind them that you are an individual, has
the power to create and destroy. yes, we should also live for ourseleves for
the satisfaction of our own soul, of our own different states of hunger. we
should live for the moment and not worry too much of the future. the
importance of the self is thoroughly explained in the book, so need to discuss
this. what im trying to state is and point out is that no man is an island,
one needs to cooperate to survive.

im deeply irritated because she downplayed and put collectivism in the bad
light. i could write a book that would reverse the order but i would not
attempt because it may be a literary flop. im not defending collectivism
because im a marxist but rather im defending it because i believe in altruism
as much as i believe in individualism, because i am both.

(july 01, 2003)


**note: this is the conclusion of my paper in socio 101 entitled:
"Conflict Analysis on Culture and Culture Transmission
in Philippine Science High School - Eastern Visayas Campus"


Struggle and conflict characterize our society. Our society is held together by the struggle and antagonism between two contradicting groups. And it is through this we could really understand the dynamics within the society.

We can never deny there is conflict in our society. Conflict between lovers, between rich and the poor, the powerful and the helpless, the capitalist and the masses, father and son, teacher and apprentice, and administrators and students. These antagonisms result into the rule of the dominant class and the oppression of the less dominating class. Conflict extends to every institution in the society. And with every conflict there is oppression and repression of the helpless and powerless. And through oppression, the greatest evil is done to a man: he is stripped off of his humanness – which is the ability to do things at his own way, at his own time, at his own place and at his own pace.

Oppression is rampant in the society. It is institutionalized in every sector of the society in order to protect the interests of the capitalists. Widespread confusion results from this oppression, as man becomes alienated from himself and from his surroundings. And through this alienation, man becomes an agent of oppression where he is able to multiply the oppression within the society.

Oppression starts from the school where the capatilistic ideologies are first imparted and inculcated to the eager young minds. After which, the students become blind of their oppression and become members of the workforce, where he works like a machine – he becomes such because he is stripped off from his humanness and wants.

Louise Althusser, French philosopher, argues that the educational system is ultimately shaped by the infrastructure and will therefore reflect the relations of production and serve the interest of the capitalist ruling class. And for the ruling class to survive, the “reproduction of labor is essential.” So, the role of education is to reproduce a workforce that has the necessary skills to become an efficient worker and to reproduce the ruling class ideology and the socialization of workers in terms of the ideologies. These processes would produce a technically efficient, submissive and obedient workforce.

Extending the Althusser view, Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis (both American economists) argue that the ruling class maintains an educational system that contributes to the reproduction of workers with the kinds of personalities, attitudes and outlooks which will fit them for their exploited status. From this, schools foster types of personal development compatible with the relationships of dominance and subordinancy in the economic sphere. They argue that, “The only significant penalized trait are precisely those which are incompatible with conformity to the hierarchical division of labor.” So, massive exploitation occurs in the society due to the low wages given to those who do not have the right attitude and outlook among the workforce.

PSHS-EVC, being a creation of the capitalism, is a major breeding ground of future workers of the ever-expanding workforce. The school, being a “house of oppression” manufactures students that are technically equipped, obedient and submissive. And the students being helpless against these forces, are unable to fight back because they are already alienated from his’ self. He no longer knows what he is and more importantly his wants.

PSHS-EVC, after an extensive analysis, has the following features: a very oppressive culture, a very forceful way of cultural transmission, and is comprised of students who don’t know of their exploited state.

What are the recommendations for the oppression to stop in the institution? One radical solution would be the deschooling of the students (as suggested by Ivan Illich). We should unmake what is done on the minds of the “young eager minds.” The answer lies on the abolition of the PSHS-EVC in particular and the present educational system, in general. In place of the schools, would be through learning webs and through “true apprenticeship of the skills.” Another solution, which is obvious, would be the abolition of the present economic system and the installation of a socialist economic system (as suggested by Karl Marx) where the people communally own everything and where everyone is involved in the education of the students. The third solution would be to do nothing about it because oppression of the people is inevitable and because there is nothing we could do about it.

There is no perfect solution to an imperfect problem. We should still examine closely the interaction between the two forces in order to have a much greater knowledge about their conflict and antagonism. My cause is not to cause rebellion nor mutiny among the students. Nor would I bring the masses into greater oppression. No I don’t have such grand dreams. All I want when I was making this study is to be able to add to the limited knowledge pool in conflict perspective here in the Philippines. Also, my aims in making this study are to make the people, especially the students, aware of their exploited state and to provide an alternative way of seeing things, on how things are and how things should be.

My love poems and love songs, written on a piece of paper blotted by tears falling like rain, are ready. Ready to be recited and sung. The flowers are also ready – neatly arranged by a florist/friend, and so are the candles, the handkerchief and the letter. I readied them all yesterday. Then, I asked myself, “Am I ready to face you again? Am I ready to go to the cemetery?”

Am I ready after many years of neglect and disregard? Am I ready to admit that it was also my fault? Am I ready to admit above your grave that I miss you so much? Am I ready to say my last goodbye? These are the questions bugging my convoluted mind at this very moment, questions that I shied away for the past years simply because I was afraid to answer them. I am scared because I do not know what answers I must give, because I do not know whether there are answers to these nagging questions. In fact I am too scared to admit that you are gone, too scared that I never visited your grave for three years, too scared to ask for forgiveness, too scared because I never said goodbye.

After three years, I am still in a state of shock and denial. How I wish that I was also there beside you on that night of your accident. But just like any tragic movies, the man would always be left behind, weeping and feeling sorry for himself, half-wishing that he may be taken by the lord at that very moment.

After three long years, I could not still accept that you are gone. I still believe that you also exist in this plane of existence. You may not have a body but your essence is still floating and soaring like air moving freely here, there and everywhere. I know you are always at my side, comforting me when I am depressed, lifting me up when I am down, and guiding me in every step I take. To me, you are not gone but simply everywhere. But alas, as I try to catch you and hug you, you slip away just like the air.

I admit a part of me died when you departed. A part of me went with you on your grave. I could not even recognize the face I see across the mirror, barely recognizing it as my own. A face in anguish and in disbelief, tormented by a love lost. A face void of expression, scarred by the abrupt loss. At that very moment, I ceased to live because your love was the only thing that sustains me. I became a hobo of sorts; just waiting for the time, waiting it to pass by as the world is running amok Time became my enemy as well, as I frantically counted the days passing by. Minutes became hours, hours became days, days became months and months became years. Each passing day became an ordeal, the pain becoming intolerable by the second. Now I understand Atlas’ situation, carrying the world above his shoulders.

I promised you that I will love you for the rest of my life. I’ve kept that promise for three years because I love you so much, so much that I was willing to love you even if you are gone. And I did my end of the bargain. At first it gave me strength but later on it became a curse hanging around my neck. For three long years, I became a broken man: weeping in my bed, hoping that someday I will be free from the curse that was my undoing; that someday I will be at peace with myself again. But you never gave me the peace I wanted dearly. You would always let me remember that dreary night. God knows how I wished that I was also there, trying to save you from three killer/ rapists, slicing their guts as I try to defend you from these soulless jackals. But fate would not let me. Fate would just not let me. Probably this is my destiny: to live my life full of pain and suffering.

My promise is the reason of this madness. My promise is the reason why I became a monster, a horror, a despicable creature waiting for time to pass by, a person who barely recognize himself, a soul shattered into pieces. Lest I become a walking zombie, I must free myself from the shackles of that promise. And if I fail to do so, my heart would always be a barren and desolate desert/wasteland: crying for rain, pleading for mercy, gasping for freedom.

But for God’s sake let me live again, let me breathe! Let me live my life again without the bondage of guilt! Allow me to break the promise for I am too suffering greatly. Because I do not want anymore to see my self rotting away into oblivion, wasting my life like some gold thrown at the middle of the ocean.

Now as I ready myself to visit you at your grave this all soul’s day, my only wish is that you accept my answers and peace offerings. And I hope you would also accept and understand that I will break the promise that I made before. Even if it is contrary to your wishes, I will leave the cemetery a broken man with a broken promise.