In another thread, AJ brought up Howard Roark, the hero of The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand's tedious opus extolling the virtues of a few great men who drag the rest of us peasants towards whatever progress the human race achieves. A few questions were left unanswered by our primary resident Rand acolyte, Wajoma, which I'd like to explore.
He quoted from one of her non-fiction articles this:
“Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life,"
I asked simply: "Why?" What makes achievement of your own happiness so "moral" that it is not only the primary purpose but the only "moral" one?
As someone who believes what is "moral" is part of our nature based on how we are "hardwired" I find such a claim inconsistent with most human mores which are, predictably because we are a social, empathic animal, supportive of acts which are considered unselfish i.e. beneficial to the group not merely the individual.
So I'd like to see a plausible defense of the assertion.
@no1marauder saidwhy would anyone try to debate this with you? you constantly twist what people say, have your own definitions of word meanings.
In another thread, AJ brought up Howard Roark, the hero of The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand's tedious opus extolling the virtues of a few great men who drag the rest of us peasants towards whatever progress the human race achieves. A few questions were left unanswered by our primary resident Rand acolyte, Wajoma, which I'd like to explore.
He quoted from one of her ...[text shortened]... to the group not merely the individual.
So I'd like to see a plausible defense of the assertion.
Never admit when you are wrong. It is a fruitless endeavor.
I also asked this of AJ and Wajoma:
no1: AJ wants to talk about Roark; what's your take on the "morality" of blowing up a building someone else owns just because it wasn't built exactly the way you designed it?
That refers to Roark's action in dynamiting a building he designed because some changes had been made to it during construction that he found abhorrent. Rather than seeking some legal remedy, he decided to destroy it. At his trial, he gives a long winded speech defending his actions because he's a "creator" and the jury finds him "not guilty" He even gets the girl in the end and this one he doesn't have to rape (like the first sex scene in the book).
So I'd like to talk about the "morality" of the act, which I guess dovetails with Rand's assertion mentioned in the OP. It surely made Howard Roark "happy", so does that make it "moral"?
@mott-the-hoople saidIf you don't want to debate, why exactly do you post in a "Debates" Forum?
why would anyone try to debate this with you? you constantly twist what people say, have your own definitions of word meanings.
Never admit when you are wrong. It is a fruitless endeavor.
@no1marauder saidAllow me to write to the bare bones of the metaphor (blowing up a building) of Ayn Rand.
I also asked this of AJ and Wajoma:
no1: AJ wants to talk about Roark; what's your take on the "morality" of blowing up a building someone else owns just because it wasn't built exactly the way you designed it?
That refers to Roark's action in dynamiting a building he designed because some changes had been made to it during construction that he found abhorrent. Rath ...[text shortened]... 's assertion mentioned in the OP. It surely made Howard Roark "happy", so does that make it "moral"?
First, it is a metaphor. I don't remember if he owned the building outright, thus being indebted to no one, except maybe to pay the city to clean it up.
So it is a metaphor, used to make the very point of which you speak. So, if you can think out of your box for a moment (there is no literal building), you might see her underlying point throughout the book........How to make oneself a responsible independent resourceful man, self-reliant, dependent on no one. Individualism vs Collectivism. I have myself used the word collectivism in the past and liberals have shouted me down,,,,,I don't know what I am talking about. Of course I do know. Because, I read her book!
Not much else to say, it is so simple, and strong. He and Biden could do wonders for our coountry, don't you think?
But seriously, how can you take issue with a man being his own self, beholding to no one, and Certainly not beholden to a government, telling us all what to do. What would Roark do if Govt told him what light bulb to use? What would you, Marauder, do, if govt told you what light bulb to use?
I am amazed at your disdain for the Rand philosophy, to be the best of the best. Individuality. No dependence. Free choice.
@averagejoe1 saidIt's not a "metaphor" and he definitely doesn't own the building.
Allow me to write to the bare bones of the metaphor (blowing up a building) of Ayn Rand.
First, it is a metaphor. I don't remember if he owned the building outright, thus being indebted to no one, except maybe to pay the city to clean it up.
So it is a metaphor, used to make the very point of which you speak. So, if you can think out of your box for a moment ( ...[text shortened]... ain for the Rand philosophy, to be the best of the best. Individuality. No dependence. Free choice.
"Rugged individualism" is not a justification for destroying other people's stuff, is it?
@no1marauder saidNope rugged individualism is not the justification for destroying other peoples stuff and blowing up the building did not make Roark happy. I think you know both these things and you're just going to be a dick about it, no worries that's your problem.
It's not a "metaphor" and he definitely doesn't own the building.
"Rugged individualism" is not a justification for destroying other people's stuff, is it?
I'm sure (speaking for a fictional character) he would have preferred the building had been built as it had been agreed it would be built. It's been a while but I think it was a matter of contract, a mans word, a condition of Roarks work that it was specifically not to be changed in the manner that it was, ok, so if you wrote the book Roark would have threatened to sue, gone to the authorities, appealed to the Institute of Architects or something and your book would have sold 3 and disappeared forever while The Fountainhead continues to sell and impact lives 80 years after it was written. It's not hard to find vids of tradesmen destroying private property in disputes of contract (usually not being paid), so it's not an incredible stretch as a storyline. I don't know if Roark and Keating (was it) agreed at the time that in the event the building was not built as planned then Roark would blow it up, it doesn't matter for the story, the point was the deal had been made. That a commitment had been made, a promise had been made, and what that should mean, that is the point.
If you'd like to talk about how he should have sought some legal remedy, hey, that's futile right, go ahead with your own book 'The Sewer Drain' because in 'The Fountainhead' the building being blown up is a major part of the story which leads to the court room scene and the speech. Good luck with your book.
@wajoma saidWajoma: I don't know if Roark and Keating (was it) agreed at the time that in the event the building was not built as planned then Roark would blow it up,
Nope rugged individualism is not the justification for destroying other peoples stuff and blowing up the building did not make Roark happy. I think you know both these things and you're just going to be a dick about it, no worries that's your problem.
I'm sure (speaking for a fictional character) he would have preferred the building had been built as it had been agreed it ...[text shortened]... jor part of the story which leads to the court room scene and the speech. Good luck with your book.
That is dishonest; you surely know they did not.
I get the point of the book; "supermen" like Howard Roark are not bound by the silly rules of society like say not destroying stuff you don't own. I just don't see the "morality" of such a view. That a certain segment of the population would find such an idea appealing isn't that surprising; every society has its share of sociopaths and/or those who envy those who "break the rules" albeit for their own selfish reasons.
@no1marauder saidOk, well there it is, you're a mind reader. This is amazing, You are amazing, No1 the mind reader.
That is dishonest; you surely know they did not.
Slow down, take a breath, I said in my post it doesn't matter if the terms were, 'In the event the building isn't built as promised Howard Roark shall have the right to blow the building up.' Or not. Maybe you can read minds of Keating and Roark too.
The Fountainhead. Roark and Keating have a disagreement, they seek legal remedy, the end.
Rand’s morality can be summed up by: she lived off welfare in the 1970’s.
As for her books, unreadable crap. Only Americans and Wayoma even discuss her absurd, and hypocritical, ideas and philosophy.
The rational human being my arse.
And of course blowing up someone else’s building is morally bankrupt. He sold it. It’s
Somebody else’s property. And you can do with your property what you want, otherwise it’s interference, because it undermines the very nature of property.
Not that I add any weight to Rand’s writing in the least, but it’s blatantly clear the whole set up for the court speech is ridiculous and adverse to her own philosophy.
@shavixmir saidHe didn't sell the building dolt boy.
Rand’s morality can be summed up by: she lived off welfare in the 1970’s.
As for her books, unreadable crap. Only Americans and Wayoma even discuss her absurd, and hypocritical, ideas and philosophy.
The rational human being my arse.
And of course blowing up someone else’s building is morally bankrupt. He sold it. It’s
Somebody else’s property. And you can do with y ...[text shortened]... atantly clear the whole set up for the court speech is ridiculous and adverse to her own philosophy.
@wajoma saidSorry, it's not my fault the premise of the book is morally bankrupt.
Ok, well there it is, you're a mind reader. This is amazing, You are amazing, No1 the mind reader.
Slow down, take a breath, I said in my post it doesn't matter if the terms were, 'In the event the building isn't built as promised Howard Roark shall have the right to blow the building up.' Or not. Maybe you can read minds of Keating and Roark too.
The Fountainhead. Roark and Keating have a disagreement, they seek legal remedy, the end.
What's interesting is that in most novels the person who commits obvious criminal and/or immoral acts like Roark does is correctly considered a villain (in good ones, with complex motivations perhaps) whereas in The Fountainhead they are put on a pedestal and, in the end, even the lowly peasants on the jury and the public are easily convinced of his righteousness.
@no1marauder saidNo need to apologise to me that the book is over your head. ATY thinks Atlas Shrugged is about pirates, so you're not alone.
Sorry, it's not my fault the premise of the book is morally bankrupt.
What's interesting is that in most novels the person who commits obvious criminal and/or immoral acts like Roark does is correctly considered a villain (in good ones, with complex motivations perhaps) whereas in The Fountainhead they are put on a pedestal and, in the end, even the lowly peasants on the jury and the public are easily convinced of his righteousness.
Edit: 9 million copies, 20 different languages, still going strong and No.1 thinks it's about rape and not going through the proper legal channels.
@wajoma saidObviously, you don't even want to discuss it, as you keep omitting from your quoting of my posts the bulk of my points. This is a standard tactic of those who want to avoid a substantive debate.
No need to apologise to me that the book is over your head. ATY thinks Atlas Shrugged is about pirates, so you're not alone.
I understand the book fine; what the author wants her readers to embrace is morally reprehensible.