DuckBites

Understanding Bill

Bill Drake (not his real name), my friend, died yesterday as I write this. His good friend Janelle called us and told me that he committed suicide.

I suppose this essay could be considered self therapy. Certainly I have no current desire to publish this. My wife would probably be the only audience I would expect.

Bill was an avowed Objectivist for his entire life. He earned a PhD in Physics from Stanford. His thesis involved substrate mechanics.

His philosophy and education was obviously a complete copy of the route the three most important heroes of Atlas Shrugged took. They, too, studied physics and philosophy. A great deal of emphasis is given in the book why this was both unusual and crucial to the characters’ development. Concommitant with that, was the importance of those two subjects with Objectivism itself.

Objectivism purports to be “pro-life” in the non-abortion sense of the term. Pro-life as opposed to worship of death. Worship of death can be interpreted as adherence to many not-of-this-world ideas and religions.

Christianity, for example, is decidedly obvious in its worship of death. The corporeal world is supposed to be depressing and sad. The reward for an ascetic life on Earth is a wonderful Heaven.

Objectivism is an atheistic philosophy that denies the whole idea of a non-corporeal world. It emphasizes earthly enjoyment and earthly achievement. Death is a total stoppage. No Force. No Heaven. No Hell.

Nothing.

Therefore, the desire of Objectivists is totally involved with this world. The world that St. Thomas said whose existence was undeniable - even to Christians and Platonists.

Why would such a person, who believed this way, end his existence prematurely? Since no reward was possible after death, this was it. Nothing more. Lights out. Total oblivion. Zero.

I talked with Bill last week. It was unusual, because he actually called me. Very rarely did he do that. Maybe once or twice in the 12 or so years I knew him. His call was not spontaneous, however. He was compelled to call me because I had a specific query about physics and philosophy.

Few people on the planet could be called more of a specialist in both these realms simultaneously. I emailed Bill because I knew he could direct me to the answer if he didn’t know it himself. I was correct.

We talked primarily of inconsequential things afterward, and I promised to come down and visit him (with kids) in the next few months. Nothing in this conversation then or now indicated any problems or disastifaction on Bill’s part. I was totally floored when I heard what happened.

As is natural, I look back on our many conversations (many of which were 3+ hours in length) to look for a clue or indicator for his decision. One thing bubbles to the top, and I am using it as my own hook to attempt to understand his motivation and despair. In lieu of a note which he may or may not have left for the people who will miss him, I am articulating this for my own benefit.

Before I go into the specific item, I would like to itemize some of my own observations about Bill’s apparent (to me) contradictions. The contradictions between his professed philosophy (which I know a great deal about), and his actions in life.

Understanding Bill’s Life

I first met Bill in 1993 shortly after I moved to Silicon Valley. His wife Stephanie started work at about the same time as I did at Computer Curriculum Corporation in Sunnyvale. Our mutual friend Janelle Page also worked there. Janelle and Stephanie and Bill would become quite close. Bill remarked on more than one occasion that he wished he could marry Janelle and Stephanie at the same time.

Upon meeting Bill, we hit it off quite well because I was extremely knowledgeable about Ayn Rand and Objectivism. I did not profess to be (and still do not) an Objectivist because I had several issues with parts of the philosophy. I especially have several issues with the Objectivist movement since Ms. Rand’s death.

Overall, though, it appeared that our sense of life was quite similar. We could talk philosophy and actually understand what each other said. I don’t have anybody else that I can discuss these issues with. The only other soul on the planet that I could was my friend James Allen Dudley. I met him in the Navy, and lost track of him in the late ‘80s after I moved to Texas.


Bill was in love with the idea of being an intellectual. I fully expected him to take up pipe smoking and lecturing somewhere on arcane subject matter. He was very smart, and knew he was. He was a persuasive debater, and changed my mind on several issues regarding politics.

It took Bill a long time to win his doctorate. There was a small scandal about missing a deadline that cost him a half or full year. Ultimately, he got his doctorate and received a fellowship in New Mexico at a government laboratory.

All you objectivists should immediately perk up and wonder about that. Ms. Rand, though she loved the US Constitution, did have decidedly unkind things to say about the current government. Since the fellowship was at a weapons laboratory, I would redouble my own consternation.

This was troubling to me, and I gave him a hard time about it. His defense was that the only real employer for physicists was in government. I was not persuaded by this argument, and he only gave a half-hearted debate for it.

After two years of fellowship, Bill made a deal with Stephanie to allow him to self study for five years. “Post doctorate” self education of extremely esoteric and arcane topics in physics. He talked with me about some of it, but much of it was over my head, or not of specific interest to me.

All this time, Stephanie patiently and quietly supported him financially and emotionally. Bill was in his mid-thirties, and had yet to get a real job producing anything.

The heroes in Atlast Shrugged were in their teens and early twenties when they started to change their world. Ms. Rand was in her early twenties when she penned “We the Living”. “The Fountainhead” was finished by her early thirties. What had Bill done?

Bill dabbled in a few intellectual sports. He loved chess (and we always played when we met in person). He decided to become a master and studied very hard. Alas, he was never more than a mediocre player. He didn’t have the discipline or perhaps the time to become a master. Mastering chess is a long term mistress, not for the impatient or those with divided loyalties. That is why I am not a master, either.

I could always beat him in speed chess if I followed the same strategy: fill him up with wine, and complicate the position. I invariably won because he took too much time.

Next, he wanted to become an artist. Then a poker player. I imagine there are several other endeavors I don’t know about.

Bill, clearly, was having a difficult time focusing himself. He was not a “hero” in the sense that Hank Reardon, John Galt, or Francisco D’Anconia were.

Jean and I remarked on many many occasions that Bill’s main contradiction was his unwillingness or inability to be productive, and this was totally contrary to Objectivism’s emphasis on achievement.

The heroes of Atlas Shrugged are an almost impossible standard to live up to. Did Bill “freeze in the headlights” in light of their incredible prowess of intellect and achievement? Bill’s main achievement was learning.

But learning is an inward activity. A PhD may be impressive to most people, but there are literally tens of thousands of PhD’s around the world. Maybe hundreds of thousands. People aren’t remembered for their learning prowess. They are remembered by their contributions to the human species in the form of their labor.

The labor is not necessarily intended to advance the species, but the real heroes in history contribute nevertheless. Aristotle, Copernicus, Edison, Jefferson, etc. all had daring achievements by age 30. Some before age 20.

Bill seemed to be enjoying himself, though. I would label him a total hedonist. A hedonist seeks outward pleasure because of something missing inside. The quest of sex with pretty women. Expensive cars. Huge television sets. Loud stereos. All are desirable, to be sure. But what if after the acquisition of these things the satisfaction disappears and the urges return stronger than before?

A hedonist, to be sure, can never be satiated. A hedonist’s drug is pleasure. Like a drug addict, a certain level of discontent is aroused when the pleasure disappears. More drugs are needed to attain the same level of pleasure. Eventually no amount of the drug is enough to ward off the feelings of unease.

Bill had the biggest TV of anybody I ever saw. I used to joke that “his is bigger than mine”, and at some point I would have to remedy that. He had a Lexus. He had the best chess equipment. He liked to drink good wine.

But there was one problem. He was not earning his way through life. He was not productive. Sure, he was learning through self study. But he was grabbing the pleasure unearned. This is a crucial difference between hedonism and objectivism. The hedonist derives pleasure from pleasure itself. The objectivist derives pleasure after earning the right to it.

In Objectivism, unearned money and wealth are taboo. The pleasures you receive from wealth are ok, as long as the wealth came because of productive endeavor. For a more precise definition, look at “The Fountainhead” and Gale Wynand’s remarks to Howard Roark at the lake. The remarks are along the lines that Roark’s lounging about on the lake are more pure and more obvious when juxtaposed against Roark’s extreme energy when working.

What is the result of this? Well, accepting unearned gifts, and unearned pleasure would generate guilt in an Objectivist. Unfortunately, guilt is a big no-no in Objectivism, too. Rand rails against guilt unrelentingly, and says that it is used by the unscrupulous to entrap and abuse the productive. She was against unearned guilt. This is crucial.

What if the guilt is earned? To an Objectivist, you have a problem.

Guilt is a response by the mind to a moral evaluation of an action. If you feel guilt, it is because you have done something “immoral”. To an Objectivist, an immoral act is almost always referred to as “evil”. Therefore, “earned guilt” is a result of an “evil” act.

Now, if you continually do “evil” things, eventually, you might be construed as an “evil person”. In Objectivism, it is actually quite easy to be an “evil person” because they throw that term around so freely. Objectivism (rightly) teaches that moral judgements are necessary. Unfortunately, objectivists are ruthless in their analysis during judgement. If that judgement is directed at the self, the result is extreme discomfort, to put it mildly.

Ms. Rand was adept at judgement, and using the word “evil”; her philosophical heirs at the Ayn Rand Institute certainly lob that term about like hand grenades every chance they get.

So we have another possible explanation for Bill’s life. First, he may have been “frozen” by the inability to live up to the heroes of Atlas Shrugged. Second, he may have thought of himself as evil because he was not productive, and living off his wife’s production.

Understanding Bill’s Death

Now we have a state where Bill is evil by the definition of his avowed philosophy. Further, he is unable to live up to his heroes - the ones in Atlas Shrugged and their author, Ms. Rand.

He has no obvious excuses for his lack of productivity. He has all the education and training our society has to offer. He is smarter than almost everybody.

But his philosophical teachers are merciless in their excoriation of guilt and evil. Indefatigably pounding it into their followers’ brains that inaction and lack of productivity aren’t just bad, but evil.

The sense-of-life of the main Objectivist movement is not benevolent. It is unyielding in its interpretation of Ms. Rand’s works. Since it is not kind, it dwells (in my opinion) on negatives incessantly.

Second rate minds are denounced as being unworthy of being even an “Eddie Willers”, much less a “Francisco” or “Ragnar”. To a person like Bill, this is a devasting indictment. Especially since he knew that he didn’t have a second rate mind.

Add to the fact that Bill was also unproductive, and living as a second hander (by the ARI’s definition), and you have all the ingredients of despair and depression.

But even these are not enough. They laid the groundwork, but the final shove toward self destruction was the very study Bill embarked upon in his post-doctorate education.

I remember a specific conversation I had with him while visiting him in Albuquerque. This would be January of 2002. Bill was studying subatomic physics at the time. I remember it, not only because he was clearly disturbed by his conclusions, but also because those assessments were so antithetical to Objectivism.

He said something to the effect that he was having a problem integrating his learning with man’s volition. His conclusion, tentative at the time, was that the universe was deterministic.

In philosophy, a deterministic universe means that everything in the universe is run completely by cause and effect, including at the subatomic level.

While I would not deny that cause and effect is the primary and obvious “law-of-the-universe”, Bill’s problem is that it collided with the Objectivist view of volition and consciousness.

If the entire universe if deterministic, that means that all interactions of all matter and energy have pre-determined outcomes. All interactions at the micro and macro level are therefore completely out of control of the the parties.

To a human being, this means that his consciousness has no power to make a moral choice - the choice is already made by the law of cause-and-effect. An endless cycle of reductio-ad-absurdem argumentation over motivations is possible when analysing any “decision” made by a sentient being.

Can you see the futility that this brings to mind? It completely contradicts Objectivism’s emphasis on self-directed achievement and production. In a deterministic universe, if you’re productive, it’s not your achievement, it’s because you got lucky with the particular molecules you inherited. The law of cause-and-effect is the reason for your success, nothing you did.

Objectivism has a special place for “volition”, and as far as I know, defines it pretty well. But as a physicist, Bill was having a hard time shaking the feeling that ultimately, it was all pre-ordained. If it’s all determined in advance, what is the use of anything?

Combine that with his guilt and you have a box that’s hard to get out of. Bill had nothing to fall back on, no achievements, nothing to point to, nothing to really be proud of.

On the one hand, his adopted philosophy was telling him that he was evil and guilty. Further, that guilt is an evil in itself.

His physics studies was telling him that all his achievements - or lack thereof - where out of his control, anyway. He was powerless to change his life - it was already predetermined, after all.

Imagine the effect this would have on someone with a need to be moral. His philosophy was telling him he was immoral. His work was telling him that he could do nothing about it.

His solution?

What this says about Objectivism

My main objection to Objectivism, as practiced by the Ayn Rand Institute, is its incessant moralism. I am not the only observer that has noticed that the principals of objectivism throw the word “evil” around with wild abandon.

Further, the practitioners are blatantly irrational in many ways. Since they are,however, preeminent logicians, they can shred an opponent in seconds. But they usually end their arguments by dismissing the person’s motivations. Basically, they resort to ad hominen attacks, and ignore the argument altogether.

This does not connote a benevolent “sense-of-life”. I cannot imagine Bill stopping to change an old lady’s flat tire on the road. I may be wrong, but I can’t see it. Further, I cannot see Leonard Peikoff doing that, either.

Though Rand was at pains to differentiate her definition of “selfishness”, in actuality, the Objectivists that I have encountered usually fall into the generally accepted definition, too. That being the “sacrifice of others for self” defininition.

There is a definite “us and them” attitude among the Objectivist elite. If you are not in absolute lock-step 100% agreement with all of their views, you are “evil.”

If you ask the wrong questions, you are branded as evil, and are forever banished from the message boards. That has happened to me on several occasions.

No errors are allowed. If you know the book Atlas Shrugged, you will note that the characters were certainly more benevolent than that. For crying out loud! The main characters - Dagny Taggart and Hank Reardon - were mistaken in their personal philosophy! One of the main themes was to teach them their errors.

Another character was Cheryl Taggart. Dagny took the time to teach Cheryl a few things.

Today, Objectivists don’t do that. If you aren’t 100% of the way there, you’re evil. They cannot afford to expend any more energy on you. However, they’ll gladly accept your money to buy their overpriced lecture materials.

Bill tolerated me, I think, because he was inwardly uncomfortable with that concept, at least when it came to me. I knew too much about the subject, and I was clearly a productive individual. He explained to me once that this kind of association was “sanctioned” by Objectivism in some manner, but I don’t recall the (probably tortuous) logic that allowed that sanction to be moral.

Ms. Rand was overly moralistic herself. I give her a pass on that, because of what she was reacting to. Growing up in a mystical country, and seeing the Bolshevik Revolution first hand would have a deep impact on someone. Seeing the same philosophy take over your adopted country would make anybody grumpy.

But the second-handers in charge of the ARI now have kept the severe sense-of-life, and have no valid reason for excoriation on such a wide scale. Since they have little or no achievements of their own, they haven’t proven to me that they are worthy of my sanction.

Objectivism, as practiced by ARI, is almost ascetic in its professed morality. No deviation is allowed in mind or body. No errors are allowed. You either get it, or you’re evil. All inquiry is shut down for fear that you’ll be branded evil and thrown out of Eden.

Finally, Objectivism has no concept of forgiveness, and more importantly self forgiveness. I am not referring to the Christian concept of forgiveness as an act of self sacrifice. Rather, I am referring to the acknowledgment that human beings make errors; further that some of these errors are founded in bad judgement calls instead of insufficient information. You are simply not allowed to release these errors, learn from them, and move on with your life.

If you cannot forgive yourself, you’re on your way to a very unhappy life. Is it really necessary to browbeat yourself, and your psyche continually on an error in judgement - forever?

That is the main reason I am not a “Big O” Objectivist. I don’t think Ms. Rand would be, either. Howard Roark would not have associated with Gail Wynand if he ascribed to modern Objectivist actions.

A Final Observation

The night before Bill’s suicide, I was channel surfing and noticed that “The Fountainhead” was showing on Cinemax. This is a rare event, and I find it intriguing that it played the night before.

In the next to the last scene, Gail Wynand - a character with many contradictions - commits suicide. He simply could not live with his contradictions. It should be noted that in the original book, the suicide did not take place. Seeing the powerful scene in the movie, how would this play into Bill’s state of mind?

One of the axioms continually espoused in Rand’s books and essays is: “Contradictions do not exist. If you think you have found a contradiction, check your premises. You will find one of them is in error.” Bill could not live with his contradictions. He did the logical thing.

Neil Alexander
8 April, 2004

Copyright © 2004 by Neil Alexander All Rights Reserved.