In my opinion, the best thing an intellectual can do to better the human race is to figure out what he or she really, really, really wants to accomplish in life–then figure out how to do it–then do it! Repeat, as needed. Then you will be truly happy, and your genuine happiness is the very best thing you can do to further mankind.

This is my advice not only philosophers, but also to normal people. :-)

Similarly, my favorite psychologist and the first systematic presenter of Objectivism told a group several years ago that the best way one can further the Objectivist philosophy is to identify what you most passionately want to put your effort into, then think about it as clearly as you can, then do it as vigorously as you can.

I think Nathaniel Branden and I are on the same page about this. I'm certainly comfortable with that page, anyway. It has stood me in good stead, as I watch not only our country, but also the Objectivist movement, staggering around in a lack of clear direction and guidance. Whatever I personally do with my remaining days on earth will be to enjoy my life by doing the things I enjoy most–not just hedonistically, but by the standard of what seems to me to be the most rational and productive use of my time. (The good is agent-relative!)

None of us is morally obligated to "further Mankind," let alone to "save" it from its folly. We are only morally obligated (by a rational standard of value and morality, which of course must be chosen) to be happy, and to do so by means of being rational and productive.

If that takes one, given one's interests and talents, into the areas of politics, philosophy, etc., then one's exercise of rational productivity will involve promoting reason and freedom. But it really has to be: to each his/her own.

Does this mean, then, that I didn’t take up trombone playing in order to be an altruist? Damn straight! But I don’t think that putting my focus on playing trombone is somehow shortchanging my children by not spending time and energy trying to figure out how to make the world a better place. Nice way to trivialize my choice to focus fundamentally on pursuing my own rational self-interest.

In a division of labor economy, everyone benefits when each person puts his energies to use in the activities that best combine his abilities and interests. Kind of an Adam Smithian karma dripping off of each self-interestedly rational, productive individual onto everyone else. Does anyone have a problem with that?

But why is everyone's benefitting from reason and freedom the reason why it is good for everyone to be rational and free? The justification for these things is not collectivist and pragmatic. It is individualistic and moral. The spill-over benefits are a secondary consequence, not the reason why these things are good. Unless you're an altruist-collectivist, of course.

There seems to be a fundamental rift between people who think that order, salvation, benefits, etc. should be imposed from the top down vs. those who prefer a trickle-up approach. I really, really, really am confident that society, i.e., individual human beings–and most importantly, my children–will be better off if I do what rationally, productively makes me better off in the way that best utilizes my talents and interests, rather than what someone else thinks I "should" do or what "would be a shame/crime/etc" if I didn't do it. Even if I'm not producing a new, rational, complete epistemology–or leading a movement promoting a consistent, pointed defense of liberty–or producing a piece of art that awakens thousands/millions to a new way of looking at life and happiness.

Would anyone want to judge negatively a person who didn’t want to pursue such ends as those, if he really didn't have the talent or interest in doing so? Would anyone want to judge negatively a person who didn't want to pursue such ends, even if he did have the talent/interest to do it, if he didn't see pursuing them as being in his rational self-interest?

And for that matter, how does anyone know that I am not working the best I can, in my own way, to doing one or more of those things, precisely because they are the best use of my talent/interest? And I stress: in my own way. Aren't we all individualists here? And I don't mean subjectivists. I mean rational individualists.

And why would anyone think that I would not, if the situation demanded it, put down my trombone and "rise up and take arms" to defend liberty, in the edge-of-the-cliff way the Founding Fathers had to do? No, I do not think they were suckers or fools! Nor do I think they were cynically defending their economic interests under the cover of principled support of individual rights.

Contra the socialist historians (who thought the Founding Fathers were the equivalent of fascists), there is no contradiction between their idealism (defense of rights and liberty) and their "materialism," i.e., their desire to protect their property against further predation by the Crown. But they were not on constant red alert. They set aside their personal projects when the situation called for it, and they put the fortunes and reputations and lives on the line. So would I, if we were at that point. But we're not. (Are we?)

As Rand answered the question "What can one do?", we don't all have to be theoreticians of or front-line warriors for reason and freedom. But what we must do is speak out, in whatever forum we can reasonably do so. Again, Rand said, "Choose your battles," which means prioritize your efforts for reason and freedom, just as you prioritize your actions toward your other values. And since we are all individuals, not products of some rationalistic cookie-cutter, just how each of us carries out that fight is very individualistic. People would do much better to focus on their own efforts to achieve reason, freedom, and happiness, than to spend their time obsessing over and judging others.

I look at "improving the lot of Mankind" a lot the way I look at "cleaning up the environment." Some people really do succeed in devising social or intellectual systems that help to make life better for a lot of people, and some people come up with good ideas for making large improvements in the environment. But other people, again following the division of labor, prefer to improve society one person at a time, or to clean up the environment one mile of littered highway at a time. I'm not foreclosing on the possibility that I may someday come up with some major boon to my fellow human beings, but doing so is not why I'm alive and why I think and create and work and produce.

If lightning struck, and I found myself forced into or inspired into such a situation, I would do it, but I would do it like I do everything else that I find in my rational self-interest: so that I can be happy. That is the thing I think it is fundamentally most important for me to do for my children and my "fellow man," to be a good example of rational productiveness aimed primarily at my own personal happiness.

Now, I realize that there are ways in which I can help promote my philosophical and political ideals indirectly, such as through contributions, referrals, etc. to those who are directly laboring in those particular vineyards. Whether through the desire for my help to give moral support for what yet needs to be done, or to express gratitude for what already has been done, it very well may be in my rational self-interest to get out my checkbook and put my money where my ideals are.

For instance, suppose for the sake of argument that anyone reading this believes that Rand’s philosophy is the “best hope of mankind,” and that Chris Sciabarra, author of Ayn Rand: the Russian Radical and Total Freedom, and editor of The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, has done more than any of the Objectivist groups to promote understanding and insight into Rand’s philosophy. If so, then I would like to encourage them to donate or contribute to Chris, to help him through his ongoing financial and medical problems, in which he finds himself through no fault of his own.

Benevolent assistance to someone as noble and great as Chris should probably find a place in the value hierarchy of any rational individualist who has been paying attention to the trajectories of the various elements within the Libertarian and Objectivist movements. I have personally put my money where my values are. I encourage others to do the same for Chris, if they agree.