Taking Rand's fictional characters too literally

[musenji]

***Mod Note: Split from this thread.***

Sapere, I agree that is an important distinction to make.

Academia:

One huge point is that she never submitted her works for peer review. That other Objectivists have since, doesn't change the fact that she didn't.

Another point is that Objectivism is defined in the "proper" circles as HER philosophy and hers alone, where other philosophies are considered to have many contributors/proponents.

Many people who come to call themselves Objectivists read the novels first, and quite often agree through emotional identification or catharsis rather than logical, reasoned judgment of the philosophical material. No other philosopher as far as I know uses fiction to delineate "official" philosophy. However, I do remember Plato's Allegory of the Cave. ...I suppose some do use stories, then.

Mainstream society:

Her writing is very polemic and easily comes off as harsh. Most people are turned off by "harsh", especially if they feel they're being targeted. This has a doubly negative effect, as word of mouth matters. People tell their friends how bad it is, their friends read just enough to pick up on the polemic writing, and denounce it based on the rest of what they've heard. Rand is an extremely mischaracterized writer, probably because people who don't like her after 2 or 3 chapters feel so turned off that they don't want to read any more.

Those who have just read her writing and agree with it tend to also come off as unnecessarily "harsh". This, I think, is partially due to mimicking of character traits without understanding the values or alternate situations. Thus the "I AM HOWARD ROARK" syndrome you talked about.

Rand does focus the light on morality in an age when people "just want to have fun". It is genuinely harder to live a life with focused values.

******

A few anecdotes about "I am Howard Roark" syndrome...

******

When "I was Howard Roark" (senior year of highschool), I refused to eat some food a friend's mom offered to me unless she let me pay her.

One time someone said, in regard to a comment of mine, "Hey, give him a break." I said, "I don't give breaks."

I dropped out of a musical duet show I loved, and on which I'd been working on very hard with my friend, because there was a religious reference in one of the songs he'd written. We were only a couple weeks from the concert--I said something about not owing him my life.

I apparently called one of my friends a vampire. I don't remember the incident, but I certainly don't doubt it.

In college, I spurned most people because I went to a religious college. I basically became anti-social, constantly suspecting people of being "evil" and trying to subvert me. Whether I was "sanctioning their immorality" was of paramount importance in my mind.

I know a girl who, having read The Fountainhead while in Europe, came back and told her boyfriend, "I didn't miss you, and I don't think you should've missed me either."

Edited January 23, 2011 by Dante
Split thread

[softwareNerd]

A few anecdotes ...

Thanks for sharing those.

How would you explain the basic error to people in such a "phase"? A few people buy into the concretes -- e.g. wanting to be an architect -- in a phase that is like infatuation. It is easy enough to explain that one must not ape concretes of a work of fiction. However, many of the examples you gave appear to be more than concretes. Are they just less obviously concrete, or is this a different type of error? Can we conceptualize and describe a common error across those examples you provided?

[ttime]

Thanks for sharing those.

How would you explain the basic error to people in such a "phase"? A few people buy into the concretes -- e.g. wanting to be an architect -- in a phase that is like infatuation. It is easy enough to explain that one must not ape concretes of a work of fiction. However, many of the examples you gave appear to be more than concretes. Are they just less obviously concrete, or is this a different type of error? Can we conceptualize and describe a common error across those examples you provided?

I would say that the main problem is trying to apply principles out of context, and failure to induce the principles individually to fully grasp them.

[softwareNerd]

I would say that the main problem is trying to apply principles out of context, and failure to induce the principles individually to fully grasp them.

How would you explain the differences between the applicable context and the one in which it is being (mistakenly) applied?

Let's take a single example: dropping out of a musical that one has worked hard for and loved and is about to be staged, because of a religious reference?

How would you explain to someone who has just read about Howard Roark and is thrilled with FH that it is okay to participate, despite a religious reference in the musical?

[JayR]

This reminds me of the line "every group has a loser: if you cant pick him out, youre him".

Meanwhile Im thinking, "Im not like that at all,.... although,......."

[Dante]

How would you explain the differences between the applicable context and the one in which it is being (mistakenly) applied?

Let's take a single example: dropping out of a musical that one has worked hard for and loved and is about to be staged, because of a religious reference?

How would you explain to someone who has just read about Howard Roark and is thrilled with FH that it is okay to participate, despite a religious reference in the musical?

Honestly, I'm not sure I could come up with a principle to differentiate the two. I think it just takes a certain understanding that the Objectivist morality is meant to serve your life, and to make you better off. It's true that Howard Roark passes up on some very lucrative offers in the novel, but he always does it for something that he values higher, personally (his artistic integrity). There's always an egoistic framework for his principles. This is very different from a morality which hands you a set of principles or commandments and tells you to stick with them, come hell or high water. I think that applying that sort of egoistic standard to your own life takes a significant period of self-discovery as to what is personally important to you, and how a life of rational self-interest fits in with a world full of mixed people. As a start, I would simply remind the person that morality is meant to further your own life, and that you should always keep your own well-being in mind when you make principled decisions.

[ttime]

How would you explain the differences between the applicable context and the one in which it is being (mistakenly) applied?

Let's take a single example: dropping out of a musical that one has worked hard for and loved and is about to be staged, because of a religious reference?

How would you explain to someone who has just read about Howard Roark and is thrilled with FH that it is okay to participate, despite a religious reference in the musical?

Well, I think I would need a bit more information to say with certainty. However, assuming that the religious reference is minor, it would be irrational to use that as a reason for forsaking all the work that you already put into the musical; obviously, the religious aspect doesn't define the musical, and is nonessential, otherwise you probably wouldn't have loved it in the first place. The mindset of the newfound Rand fan in that context must be something along the lines of "Oh man, I really love this musical, but religion is evil and so I cannot sanction it in any way, therefore I must quit working in this musical!" This is an instance of context-dropping, because while religion is indeed evil, one is not necessarily sanctioning it by participating in a musical with a small religious reference. One can still work for and love the musical (and the most important parts of it), and still think the religious reference is wrong. The important thing here is: In this context, am I working for something that is essentially evil or essentially good? And, in this case, assuming you love the musical (and working on it) for the right reasons, the latter would be the correct answer.

In any case, I would be interested to know how someone who worked hard for a musical only found out about a religious reference in it just shortly before it was staged.

Tristan

Edited January 23, 2011 by ttime

[musenji]

Ah, I should clarify. It wasn't a musical as in "on stage school musical". It was a performance of songs that I and my friend had written ourselves. We both sang and played guitar among other things and had set up a two-man show together.

The lyric in one of the songs that he'd written was "I'd never known true love's hand--something God alone can send." I was singing the line in harmony with him.

I knew about the lyric the whole time, as we had practiced the song many times. What changed was that I read the Fountainhead a few weeks before the show came. Which was when I decided that 1. I was definitely an atheist and not just agnostic and 2. I couldn't "sanction" the idea that only God can send love.

It's been nine years since then, and I don't remember if that was the only thing in the show I had a problem with. Obviously I still could've handled it in a much better fashion, but handling it better would've required not being "Toohey-paranoid".

***

Clearly there's a difference between trying to be Howard Roark and wanting to live like Howard Roark (or any of Rand's heroes). Failure to abstract ideas properly is a key problem, as is failure to hold values in a hierarchy, as opposed to intrinsicism.

I think there's a parallel between this, and Francisco's money speech: "If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him." I think the same could be true of powerfully affecting ideas. If they're bigger than one's capacity to analyze and hold in context, they take over.

[edit] This is a totally moot point but he wrote the song about a girl. Just to be clear.

Edited January 23, 2011 by musenji

[Maximus]

Maybe I'm strange, but I felt no desire to imitate any of Rand's fictional characters. I also found The Fountainhead boring. I enjoyed AS, though, but knew I was not like the characters nor felt a desire to imitate them. I was, however, fascinated with Rand's philosophy, and was spurred to read the non-fiction works. Maybe it was because I was in my 40s and had a long established identity of my own that I was comfortable with? Perhaps it is a product of youth and a not yet developed personal identity that causes people to identify so heavily with the characters?

[JayR]

Maybe it was because I was in my 40s and had a long established identity of my own that I was comfortable with? Perhaps it is a product of youth and a not yet developed personal identity that causes people to identify so heavily with the characters?

I think that exactly what it is. Young people trying to "find themselves" see an easy answer in parroting characters they admire. As we get older, a sense of identity naturally sets in with experience, and sometimes the reverse happens, we recognize ourselves in a character we admire. I think with age and experience some gain an admiration of abstract ideas and virtues rather than concrete actions.

[softwareNerd]

Young folk will ape concretes -- like a haircut of their favorite rock-star or the swagger of some film-star -- sometimes without even knowing it.

However, the examples in the OP are not the aping of concretes. That's what makes it interesting to me: instead of aping concretes, the person in those examples is trying to take the principles from the book and apply them to his own life. So, for instance, he does not copy become and architect, instead he sees Roark not compromising on his principles, and tries to emulate that principle of action.

So the error is not "don't copy concretes", but something else.

[Maximus]

Perhaps the error is taking one's self too seriously? I see that in some O'ists.

[softwareNerd]

Perhaps the error is taking one's self too seriously?

You mean trying to be perfect?

[JayR]

Young folk will ape concretes -- like a haircut of their favorite rock-star or the swagger of some film-star -- sometimes without even knowing it.

However, the examples in the OP are not the aping of concretes. That's what makes it interesting to me: instead of aping concretes, the person in those examples is trying to take the principles from the book and apply them to his own life. So, for instance, he does not copy become and architect, instead he sees Roark not compromising on his principles, and tries to emulate that principle of action.

So the error is not "don't copy concretes", but something else.

True, something else is going on. Rand showed abstract principles in concrete form, so naturally it will appear to be more than just dressing a certain way, or wearing a certain hairstyle. Its like trying to parrot a sense of life, and the irony is in the parroting of integrity. This gives it the illusion of depth, when its anything but.

Its life as a floating abstraction.

[Maximus]

You mean trying to be perfect?

No, acting like your farts smell like cinnamon buns.

[JayR]

I was going to give a detailed philosophical analysis exploding your cinnamon bun statement, citing the primacy of existence principle, and the law of causality as applied to odiferous gasses, but my time is of too much importance to waste on trivial matters!

[softwareNerd]

No, acting like your farts smell like cinnamon buns.

Funny and colorful concretization of "don't take yourself too seriously". I figure you're saying that the young person in the OP should decide what is big and what is small -- i.e. what is important and what is not -- and just go with the flow on the smaller things? Edited January 25, 2011 by softwareNerd

[whYNOT]

I think there's a parallel between this, and Francisco's money speech: "If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him." I think the same could be true of powerfully affecting ideas. If they're bigger than one's capacity to analyze and hold in context, they take over.

That's a great analogy. Admittedly, because I use it, too - in a paraphrase of Rand: "No man may be smaller than his [money] philosophy."

---

I think this discussion revolves round discovering one's own values, and practically applying them without compromise.

Here's where the concept "sanctioning evil" has to be carefully considered.

Occasionally, Dr Peikoff, in his useful podcasts, does make a mistake, in my opinion; and one I heard was to do with the immorality of sanctioning mysticism by a musician playing in a church band.

If one is an atheist and writes a song extolling God, then that would be a case, imo. This is an obvious contradiction of one's own values. Plus, sanctioning immorality.

But, being hired to design a church, and be given full creative licence, will be an opportunity for the Objectivist architect to build a temple to the spirit of Man.

I suppose the two criteria are "who is the client?"- and "for what purpose will my work be used?" Ultimately, will my morals be compromised?

[softwareNerd]

I suppose the two criteria are "who is the client?"- and "for what purpose will my work be used?" Ultimately, will my morals be compromised?

How would those be answered when it comes to building a church? I've seen some nicely designed Catholic Churches and I guess there must be some nice ones by other sects as well. So, let's say the client is either the Catholic church of some more modern evangelical preacher. So, we know who the client will be: the pope's representatives or someone like Pat Robertson. As for the second question, the church -- even one built as a "temple to man", will most likely be interpreted as a temple to God, with any greatness of architectural design providing evidence of divine glory.

I'm not saying it would be immoral to built the church, but what type of answers would we need to those questions before we're satisfied that it is okay to build it?

Also, does the world at large and the alternatives it offers factor into the decision? Does it matter if the architect finds himself in a time when a lot of architectural billing is money spent on churches?

[icosahedron]

Ah, I should clarify. It wasn't a musical as in "on stage school musical". It was a performance of songs that I and my friend had written ourselves. We both sang and played guitar among other things and had set up a two-man show together.

The lyric in one of the songs that he'd written was "I'd never known true love's hand--something God alone can send." I was singing the line in harmony with him.

I knew about the lyric the whole time, as we had practiced the song many times. What changed was that I read the Fountainhead a few weeks before the show came. Which was when I decided that 1. I was definitely an atheist and not just agnostic and 2. I couldn't "sanction" the idea that only God can send love.

It's been nine years since then, and I don't remember if that was the only thing in the show I had a problem with. Obviously I still could've handled it in a much better fashion, but handling it better would've required not being "Toohey-paranoid".

This is the extra bit of key info I need to jump into the pool at this juncture. IMHO, you were morally correct (I had to divorce my wife when I realized the truths in OPAR, and have no regrets), but the way you handled it maybe could have been more friendly (it remains to be seen whether my ex-wife and I will be long term friends), can't tell.

The thing is, being intimate with (i.e., spending lots of time in close proximity to, interacting with) a second-hander once you've seen how awful such a one can be is hard to take. Funny, the intrinsicists are actually easier to deal with than the subjectivists, but its never good to reinforce the "black" in those you are intimate with. Your repugnance was tangible, and being young, you did not think to soften your response.

- ico

[whYNOT]

Also, does the world at large and the alternatives it offers factor into the decision? Does it matter if the architect finds himself in a time when a lot of architectural billing is money spent on churches?

...and temples, and mosques, and synagogues Yeah, we live in such a time, don't we?

Softwarenerd, I knew when posting the above that I raised more questions, maybe, than answers. When it comes to contexts, it seems that way.

For instance, I don't think it's always moral to be the muso for a church, or to design one.

Especially if one made one's career out of these.

I would be very conscious of any rationalizing, and pragmatism involved - but would not rule out ever doing it.

Example: as a photographer, who is also a long-time atheist, would I take up the lucrative wedding photography market, if business was bad? Doing this in the past - taking pictures in church - has never bothered me in the least.

Actually, I like and get along with many religious people; I enjoy some hymns and choral music; some places of worship, I find very beautiful .

So for me, no contradiction, no sanction of evil, despite my distaste for religion's irrationality.

To have a modern tyrant , such as a Robert Mugabe, approach me for my work, however - not for any money would I do it.

I realize this speaks of my hierarchy of values. That it also raises more unanswered questions. Only the individual can answer them, I believe.

[Maximus]

Funny and colorful concretization of "don't take yourself too seriously". I figure you're saying that the young person in the OP should decide what is big and what is small -- i.e. what is important and what is not -- and just go with the flow on the smaller things?

Pretty much. As long as you remain true to the larger principles, you'll be fine. Someone once said "don't sweat the small stuff."

[softwareNerd]

I think the mistake in walking away from the musical was that the person was making perfect the enemy of the good. I don't sneer at an ambition for perfection as such. If the person in the OP had included a religious reference himself and then decided he wanted to take it out to make it better, that would be good, even though it is likely "small stuff". If there was some cost involved, of course one would have to weigh that cost. At some point it would not be worth the effort. At that point, perfection becomes an enemy of the good, with a total result that is actually "less perfect". Seeking to optimize some narrow aspect, the person in the OP is lost sight of the total value involved. Presumably, walking away from the musical was a loss of a value. By walking away, the person was not choosing the larger value, but the lesser one.

[Grames]

I think the mistake in walking away from the musical was that the person was making perfect the enemy of the good.

Worse, he didn't just walk out on a musical he walked out on a person, a friend. It is terrible to live in service to an idea, instead of having ideals serve you. It is selflessness.

[Tyco]

Most of Rand's characters I think of as theoretical extremes, made a certain way in order to make/support a point. I wouldn't expect anyone in real life to act quite like them, not the more prominent ones anyway.

I think of them as being like the 'cardinal vowels' - which are sounds we can make by articulating from the edges of our voice box, but which you don't hear in natural speech. But knowing of their existence helps us understand the normal vowel sounds and put them in perspective.

For instance Roark's refusal to allow changes to the front of the large office building he's designed, and thus losing out on the contract. And then going into a sort of personal recession. That shows that for a great artist, it's possible for them to value their art above almost everything else, and even when people penalize them for it, it's possible for him to go back to 'nothing' (working as construction labour) and not be 'destroyed' by the incident, because his self-esteem is intact/indestructible. For most of us though, we're not genius artists, even if we were we might not necessary hold those matters as such high values, or we might have other values to weigh up before making a decision like that (Roark was basically aloof from everything else - no family etc).

You don't have to act like Roark all the time to have integrity.