He looks again at the whiteboard and writes:
Title and ideology of the study to be assigned by Sept. 15.
Study to be delivered between Nov. 15 and Dec 5.
I take note of the deadlines and what the study should include. For the next twenty-five minutes, Prof. Reich starts forming groups of fives, and since there are one hundred people attending, he just groups us alphabetically. Fortunately, he makes an exception for our group, recognizing us from last year. Then, he develops the concept of wealth in a capitalist society and explains it with the same energy and fun that he always has, and we all take additional notes at every opportunity.
Once the class is over, the obvious question pops up. “Any idea which philosophical system you guys would like to choose?” Matthew asks.
We all glance at each other, but remain mute. Since no one seems particularly chatty, I say, “I think objectivism is one of the most underrated philosophical systems in history. Maybe we could explore that.”
“How cute…” Matthew tries hard not to chuckle, but his facial expression gives everything away. What’s wrong with him today? “Given the fact that you haven’t opened a decent book for the past six months, I’ll let this go. Any other suggestions?” I crease my brows, absolutely baffled at his inconsiderate and careless comment.
Before anyone can suggest something else, I hold his stare and ask, “What’s wrong with objectivism?” Which translates to What’s wrong with you? And I give a glance toward the rest of the group, trying to read the answer on their faces, but they are totally expressionless. “It’s the opposite of intellectual conformism. It’s precisely about taking risks and choosing the least traveled road…”
“Rand’s a very shallow philosopher, Petra.” His harsh criticism about something and someone that I admire greatly makes my whole body tense up. But Matthew doesn’t seem bothered that I shake my head in disagreement with his statement, and he proceeds, “I understand the appeal given your young age, but it’s painful to hear your comments endorsing it. If you are into classic liberalism, you might just read the classics instead.”
His tone is condescending, making me think less of him at every interaction. Nevertheless, I say, “If I’m not mistaken, scholars such as Gotthelf considered the philosophy as a unique and intellectually interesting defense of classical liberalism worth debating.”
“Too bad he is dead,” Matthew snaps back, before drifting his attention to everyone else. “So any other suggestions?”
What a fucking asshole he can be sometimes! “What’s so wrong with objectivism?” I ask again, aiming for a straight, clear answer for once. “Just because it’s not mainstream doesn’t mean it’s a juvenile philosophy not worth exploring.”
“It’s useless intellectual garbage.” Matthew doesn’t go soft on his words. “We can do something more contemporary.”
“It’s contemporary; Allan Gotthelf, one of her scholars, died in 2013,” I tell him.
“Guys,” David intervenes, his voice steady and most likely searching for a peaceful compromise. “I know nothing about objectivism, but if you both know enough about it, then maybe it’s a good idea we do the study about it.”
“David,” Matthew snaps again, his tone dismissive. “Petra gave one of the worst suggestions in human history,” he rebukes with a smirk. “It’s like saying Hitler had a point to do what he did.”
“What?!” I gape instantly at his absurd comment. “What does Nazism have anything to do with objectivism?”
“It’s a right-wing philosophy that defends selfishness and capitalism. It’s just as bad,” Matthew snaps back.
“Ethical selfishness,” I correct. “It’s about pursuing your destiny, what you believe in…”
“That’s something Hitler would say,” Matthew keeps teasing. Or at least I hope he is, because I’m hating him to the core with every new word coming out of his mouth.
“Any ambitious person would say so. Any entrepreneur likes objectivism,” I tell them.
“Oh yeah, Wall Street and tech titans must love it,” Matthew chides. Then he looks at David and says, “It’s a philosophy that basically defends classic liberalism and laissez-faire.”
“And individual freedoms and rights,” I add. Grasping my iPhone, I quickly search for one of my favorite quotes by Rand and read it out loud, “Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision.” Then looking at my group, I ask, “Isn’t it heroic and noble? Something we should all want to aspire to? Objectivism rejects social and intellectual conformism. It’s like the slogan of Apple, ‘Think different.’”
“It’s like the philosophy of the greedy when applied to the economy,” Matthew interposes, having none of it. “That’s why Prof. Reich and so many scholars rightfully dislike it so much. I’m disappointed that you even like it.”
“So we’re screwed?” David asks, his tone filled with fear. “I feel like we’re gonna get such a bad grade. And I can’t have bad grades. My scholarship depends on it.”
“No one is gonna get bad grades,” I reassure him. “We will work methodically and decompose objectivism first as a philosophy, and then how it applies to different branches of PE…” I stop before saying, Matthew is just being an ass. And looking at the asshole sitting beside me, I say, “For someone studying economics, you should be a bit more open-minded.”
“It’s because I’m open-minded that I don’t like objectivism. I studied it, and I found it very juvenile and shallow.”
“Enough, you two,” Sarah interjects, her loud voice startling everyone. “I’ve never seen you guys like this,” she points out, looking at Matthew and me. “You guys used to be great friends.” As she lets out a sigh, we look at each other, knowing Sarah is right, but not acknowledging it. “I couldn’t care less about objectivism, but I do care about our group.” Then she pauses, thinking something through. “Since you guys are so crazy attached to this philosophy, Matthew will say one good thing about it, and Petra one bad thing.”
After assessing Sarah’s request, Matthew is the first to speak. “Hmm, the fact that objectivism believes hedonists and whim-worshippers are living sub-humanly sounds good to me.”
“And you, Petra?” Sarah asks.
“That’s exactly what I don’t agree with when it comes to objectivism. I think hedonism can be pursued as a sustainable and ethical lifestyle.”
“What the fuck? Ethical hedonists?” Matthew huffs, trying to brush off my opinion. “Sounds like a PC way to describe spoiled brats who have never worked a single day in their lives.”
Squinting my eyes like lasers, I focus them on Matthew like I could zap him. “Just because some people don’t need to work doesn’t mean their lifestyles are less honorable,” I find myself saying, as if the attack was personal.
Mercifully, our heated argument gets interrupted by a knock on the door, and Janine comes in. “Miss Van Gatt? Lunch is served,” she announces.