Standing up for Steve Jobs

Mr. Steve Jobs died 3 weeks back. There was over flooding of condolences on social networking sites as well as widespread media coverage on Steve Jobs ‘life’. Whatever might be the motives, I was happy that the society is still just enough to recognize the greatness of an individual and do the very least they can do, that is, saying ‘thank you’. That was ‘Being Human, recognizing greatness of fellow human. But in our society definition of ‘Being Human’ is a charitable trust for as vague a category as ‘NGO kids’ run by an equally vague person. I don’t understand what NGO kids means. Probably in altruist definition it means ‘less fortunate’, under-served, ‘the real deserving’ etc etc whatever makes you feel guilty of your achievement till date and itches you to go donate somewhere to get the monkey off your back. Where the money spent goes in the end, no one bothers. To get back to the point, it was just matter of time before people started hating the attention Steve Jobs death was getting and start belittling him. I came across two such posts on Facebook recently. I don’t blame the friends who put up those links supporting it. Centuries and centuries of ‘hard work’ by altruist/socialist brigade has made people to believe that whatever one person achieves is either through ‘luck’ or due to ‘generosity’ of the society in ‘letting’ that person achieve it. I have attached two images which forced me to come out of my hiatus from writing.

The first image is a newspaper clipping where the columnist, due to some unimaginable hatred and jealousy towards achievement has tried to bring Steve Jobs down to the level of the person next door. (Person next door who? No idea. As long as he is someone low-key known only to family and friends and a ‘common’ guy, prone to mistakes.) In his argument, he has used the example of Jonas Edward Salk, inventor of polio vaccine and how by refusing to patent his vaccine he did a noble deed. He has quoted Mr. John Salk arguing “There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?” Here, there is a major philosophical flaw. Sun is something metaphysical, given, part of nature. It is not created by a Human Being. Vaccine on the other hand is a combination of metaphysical and epistemological, a man-made product using what is on offer by nature and applying a high level complexity of brain, by questioning ‘why and what for’ at each stage and forming a product which will go on to become one of the most useful discoveries. That Mr. Jonas Salk refused to patent it is his choice. What makes Mr. Jonas Salk great is his discovery. To make profit of it or not was his prerogative. If he had decided to make profit of it, he had every right to. And so had Steve Jobs. Yes Steve Jobs’ product didn’t save anybody’s life. But is the quality of life with and without his products same? Did he force anybody to buy his products? Columnist argues that he was a ‘profit motivated human’ and refused to do philanthropy and hence is worthless. I want to tell the columnist that the reason we are not in stone age is this group of such ‘profit motivated humans who take the risk to venture on unknown paths.’ Who gives this Columnists or similar altruists/socialists out there any right on Steve Jobs and his organization’s profits? IT IS NOT YOUR MONEY. He and his organization have made the money in true sense of terms, by offering a product which has VALUE. To buy it or not was your choice. Another argument columnist has given is that Steve Jobs ‘only’ did marketing, he was ‘just’ another owner of an organization and compared him with politicians. I was actually left dumbstruck after reading it. I had to read it twice and then had to bang my head on wall beside me to ‘let it in’. How can someone compare a businessman with politicians who are the worst kind of second-handed people one can find? Do people think it is easy being businessman? An inventor who stays in laboratory, no matter how great results he achieves is not bothered about how you buy crockery, vehicles, smart-phone or sandals. He is only interested in his work (which is perhaps the greatest). A businessman on other hand is someone who is willing to bear the risk, gives practical form to the great inventions. If the product fails, it is the businessman who suffers, not the inventor. Was bringing Apple products to people ‘just’ a marketing gimmick and same as the ‘acts’ of politicians? I assume there are not many out there who believe the same. If they do, the society will lead to its natural course into stone age.

I am actually happy if whatever said in the second image is true. No, I don’t shed a tear for millions who die. Yes, it is very unfortunate and disappointing if the numbers quoted on right hand side of image are true. But no person in this world has any ‘duty’ towards anyone. The solution to the problem is an issue in itself and can’t be explained in this post due to constraints. But to summarize it in one line, the more free the business and trading becomes from government interventions, lesser will be the number of such unfortunate deaths. If 100 million are shedding tears for Steve Jobs (I am sure many of those are of crocodile’s) it is a tribute which he deserves.

Just a message to altruists/socialist brigade, one which they must have seen many times on trucks in India, ‘Jalo mat, barabari karo’ (meaning: Don’t be Jealous, try to match (the achievement))

The dream I was waiting for

It was late in the night. After long time, I was reading Atlas shrugged again, the epic novel of Ayn Rand, a book claimed to be 2nd only to bible both in sales and influence. Not sure if the kind of influence is same, that is not what I intend to judge here. While reading I felt, how wonderful it would have been had I met Ayn Rand. This feeling was not unusual though, more so because it is not usual or ‘normal’ to be crazily in love with someone who died 3 years before you were born and if that is the case, longing to meet is natural. I had felt it before as well, but that night I had too many questions in mind, questions which probably no one else can answer. I fell asleep, thinking.

I was walking through the woods, alone. It was quite pleasant morning with forest birds chirping all around. A river was flowing through the forest, nonchalantly. At some distance sun rays had penetrated through the trees and the stream was glowing because of the rays. The warm rays had cause mist to rise in the forest. I suddenly saw a lady with fishing rod sitting at the bank. I walked towards her. It was Ayn Rand, with her dark black hair and big eyes. She looked at me and smiled. She looked amused. Probably she didn’t expect anyone to see there. I, on the other hand thought that it was inevitable that she was here, in this heaven like setting.

I said, “I have run away from the world, not because of cowardice, but there were too many questions bothering me.” I started talking without ‘Hi, Hello’ as if restarting a conversation stopped few days back.

“Hello, who are you?” she asked.

“I am Kunal Nichkawade, from India, a big fan of yours” I answered.

“Okay, what are the questions that are troubling you?”

"Ohhh, a great many. Probably I am too dumb to find the answers."

“That is for you to worry about. Figuring out if you are dumb or smart. I am more interested in knowing the questions.”

I told her about the supposedly ‘career defining process’ I had witnessed in my college few days back. The process which I think is a farce. I told her that probably I had no right to criticise or even to judge others, particularly when so many people work so hard to make the process a success.

“One should never fail to pronounce moral judgement” she said. I suddenly remembered an article of hers where she had explained this concept. “But judging someone doesn’t involve feelings or instincts. It is completely objective and rational process. One must always be prepared to answer “Why?” Tell me, why were you disturbed if everything went well?”

Because of the attitude of ‘All is well that ends well.’ This implies that end justifies the means, which I don’t agree to”, I replied.

“I hope someday people will learn that words have exact and literal meaning. Neither does end justifies the means nor do the means justify the end. There is no dichotomy. “ She said.

“Well, there is something which is troubling me more”, I continued. “ I was interested in the field of microfinance. Whatever labels of ‘selflessness’, ‘helping the poor’ etc people might put to the field, I had purely selfish reason of having a better society to live in, and somewhere helping people realise that independence is their basic right, but one’s ability is that one should trust and depend on and nothing else to realise that right. But for a short time when I worked in the field, I heard people say “need is greater than ability.” The person who said this was working tirelessly for years in small village for poor. I rarely fail in judging people and I knew that this person had no wrong intentions while working in this field. I can see the struggle he had put up over the years. I was wondering what made him utter the above sentence. “I pay my field worker more than my C.A. because field worker has 4 children while the C.A. is single” he explained. I never thought it was possible for anyone to say so. Is it the fault of the C.A. that he is more qualified and that the other person has 4 children? During dinner on the same day, I heard the field worker discuss with other field workers how the C.A was getting more influential in the organisation and that he should be stopped. He was speaking in local dialect of Marathi, forgetting that I am from same region and very well understood the dialect. The person running the organization will probably get baffled when he will see rift in the organization, but that would be the exact result of the philosophy of ‘need is greater than ability’. I have heard people say “financial inclusion is not a policy of choice but policy of compulsion.” The phrase is getting more popular nowadays. People hearing it are overwhelmed by the sentence and repeat it without understanding the proper meaning, thinking that it ought to help poor and punish rich. Compulsion? By whom? On whom? By what standards? Nobody will think. The mere fact that government is getting involved, but later clarifying that organisations must self regulate shows that regulation at later stage from government is inevitable. It is not too difficult to figure out who gains and who is punished when such philosophies are established. In the former case it were the field worker and the C.A respectively while in later case it will be ‘policy makers’ who will gain and banks who will be under compulsion to provide credit will lose. It doesn’t require an economics or banking expert to figure out the impact this compulsion will put on economy. The loans in microfinance can’t be compulsion. Those who want to provide loans can do so voluntarily.”

“Well, you are not as dumb as I thought” she said chuckling. “Tell me, isn’t interest in social sector for a student of my philosophy a contradiction?” she asked mockingly, like a teacher who knowingly commits a mistake.

“Contradictions don’t exist!” I replied instantaneously as if I had said something she didn’t know, quickly realising it was her and her teacher Aristotle’s philosophy which was in back of my mind. She was smiling. I thought, non-contradiction is the basis used to prove irrationality of an irrational number while learning surds in mathematics, yet the seeming contradictions are easily accepted in life.

“I don’t find happiness anywhere”, I said gravely. Neither in people who got ‘career-defining’ jobs for themselves nor in those who are working for others. That is why I ran away.

“Kunal, when were you most happy?”

I felt glad she addressed me by my first name. “While reading Atlas shrugged” I replied.

“Why?”

“Because Francisco d’Anconia was there, always.”

I saw a smile of satisfaction on her face. “Well, you have got your answer. The motive power of one’s happiness is within that person. It can’t be achieved by following random whimsical philosophies. What I wanted people to understand that it is not the supernatural talent of Francisco which is impossible but it is his spirit which is. It is not because that spirit is superhuman. It is because it is human in true sense as it is rational yet which is something the world has never seen. When that spirit is realised by everyone, no Francisco d’Anconia or John Galt will have to go in search of Atlantis”

I thanked her and waved good bye. I had found a new vigour to get back to work. Generally nice dreams are broken abruptly, this one didn’t.

Our famed Constitution

This post was long overdue, mainly because the incident which it relates to happened about 4 weeks back. I was sitting at Dadu’s, the hangout-cum-small eatery at XLRI. Probably I was the only student left in college, as everyone had left for home after end-terms. There were few labourers hanging around, and were in middle of some intense discussion. I heard the words, “apne desh ka constitution bahut bakwaas hai” (The constitution of our country is utter nonsense) which was followed by half-mocking advices from others to convert to a particular religion which supposedly cares for poor people and improves standard of living as a ‘return favour’ for accepting their religious beliefs. I didn’t need to hear any further as I had managed to guess the discussion topic, but it got me thinking whole day on politics, its importance in human life and society in general.

Though the labourers were probably not aware, their discussion had roots in part III (fundamental human rights) and part XVI (Special provisions relating to certain classes) of constitution of India. It is indeed unfortunate that when people talk about politics, what it is and its consequences, they conveniently forget (most of them don’t even know) that it had roots in Aristotle’s work. According to Aristotle, inquiry into ethics leads to politics and ultimately provides principles of “how men should treat other men”. Same point has been put forward by Ayn Rand while defining Objectivist Politics. She gives very apt example while explaining political philosophy where she says “political philosophy will not tell you how much rationed gas you should be given and on which day of the week—it will tell you whether the government has the right to impose any rationing on anything.”

So, when that person said, that “our constitution is utter nonsense”, he was doing the basic error of assuming something which is derived as given. Constitution can never be nonsense. It is the political philosophy which is flawed. The constitution is just the effect. Politics is clearly dependent on other 3 philosophical principles of metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. A political philosophy which has socialist values, which tries to integrate fundamental rights and special provisions to certain classes together can’t have any other consequences than those observed in our society. A political philosophy which deviates from the basic principles had to result in a disparity which is observed today. A constitution giving people the fundamental right to follow any religious belief but following it with special provision based on caste is not serving any purpose.

To conclude, whatever seems ‘nonsense’ in life is clear consequence of men’s actions from the point where they start to abandon reason. To quote the non-contradiction principle put forward by Aristotle and championed by Ayn Rand, “Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. One of them has to be wrong”.

Me, MBA and Philosophy

Writing the first blog was an amazing and unbelievable feeling. (Especially after such a fantastic response). They say, ‘well begun is half done’. Right. It is only half done. So, will I be able to write better or at least as good in future? No idea. Lazy Kunal is very dominant. This also reminds me of a fear I always had since childhood. What if, one day I lose my sense of humour and sarcasm? (Yes, I have good sense of humour and I am arrogant about it.)What if One day some person is talking on topic other than football and philosophy and I actually seriously start listening to him and SAIL(Sarcastic and irony loving) Kunal goes dumb? Shudder, Shudder and more shudder. I haven’t learnt anything else in my life!!! I will probably start wandering around like Salman khan in ‘tere naam’, with handcuffs and that Greek warrior robe. But then, it hasn’t happened in 25 years, the ‘sense’ is intact and hopefully will be in future.

So, In MBA terms, Sense of humour is my core competency. I am very slow in understanding such terms. For ex. I still don’t know how to ‘leverage’ the word leverage even after hearing it infinite times. I don’t know what cohort means. Not literally, but how it pops in some discussions and I go blank trying to remember the meaning and fit it into the context. No use. Till then, the discussion reaches on something which adds value. I try to calculate but then somebody tells me it can’t be measured. When I started working, I heard the term ‘deliverables’ quite often. Sometimes I used to wonder whether I am working in Software Company or maternity hospital. I somehow can’t use these terms. Probably there is no ‘incentive’ for me to do so.

I am really not sure why I speak so sarcastically about MBA when I have invested a huge sum, time etc in it. It makes me look all the more stupid. Ignorance is bliss they say. There lies the problem. I can’t ignore the underlying philosophy existing behind most of things which happen around me. Small small things. Take for ex. Why MBA? Now, I have no right to judge someone else’s choice and reason behind it. But I don’t understand something like, “I want to do MBA for money and good life.” Some openly agree others not so openly but general belief among MBA aspirants and those pursuing MBA is that this is THE reason why everyone does MBA and those who disagree are lying. The general argument is, I am ready to work hard and work ethically for money. What is wrong in it? Yes, it is perfect and best one can do. Working hard and ethically. Problem lies in failing to identify what is fundamental and what is derivative. Most of you must have heard about derivatives. In finance, Derivatives are those that derive their value from other fundamental financial instruments. Similarly money, which is a tool of exchange by nature, would have its real worth derived from what you do, why you do it and how you do it. Answer to these 3 questions would be the fundamental reasons to do something. Hence, Money which itself isn’t fundamental in nature can’t be a basis in choosing career path which clearly depends on one’s fundamental’s choices. One would argue why think so much. It is because, more often than not, what we get is result of choices we make. I see some amazingly talented people around me which makes me wonder what an average person like me is doing here. I don’t want these talented individuals to hit dead-end at some point in their lives.

If I can give so much gyaan, why I myself don’t put in practice? Why do I normally do nothing, even after being in a premier b-school and let things happen to me? I still believe I was right when I answered ‘why MBA’ to myself. But now, the image of MBA in my head is, few chosen ones being led blindfolded through a dark cave, being promised light at the end of the journey. I see myself standing in the cave, refusing to get blindfolded and follow the path. Standing still, unsure of where to move is my fault. Probably revisiting the fundamentals and putting them in practice would help me in my journey towards utopia.