Why is the Good not a subjective choice?

[Seeker]

Here is the difficulty I have. I can accept that I ought to choose values and goals according to my nature, but I am not sure what that means objectively. It can't mean my mind: that can be whatever reason compels it to be according to reality. It can't be my "sense of life", because that can be reprogrammed to reflect reality and is not intrinsically reliable. It can't be my body (excluding such goals as my body couldn't fulfill, like super-athleticism). It couldn't be my brain (excluding such goals as would exceed its neurological limits, like being the next Einstein). It might be my need for action generally, as in Neitzche's "will to power", but that's a general concept unsuitable for creating a distinct hierarchy of values and selecting specific goals. Beyond the requirements for survival, there are infinite choices but no objectively reliable means of selecting any of them.

Part of the problem, I think, is that Rand never explained why her heroes chose the specific courses they did. We never knew why it was right for Dagny to be the railroad executive and John Galt the physicist, and not vice versa. It seems to me that the only way is to resort to their subjective preferences or the happenstance of their lives, which seems arbitrary and unsuitable for an Objectivist, doesn't it?

Edited October 29, 2006 by Seeker

[DavidOdden]

Here is the difficulty I have. I can accept that I ought to choose values and goals according to my nature, but I am not sure what that means objectively. It can't mean my mind: that can be whatever reason compels it to be according to reality.

Okay, but your mind is a part of your nature. As is your body (I’m not suggesting a mind-body dichotomy). When we talk about the identity of some existent, we don’t mean just one aspect of it, we mean its entire nature. Here are some concrete examples of a person’s nature bearing on their values. Given a certain variation in the taste receptor gene hTAS2R38, you may hate broccoli because it kind of hurts to eat it. If that is a fact about your body, then this means that it would not be sensible for you to be a professional broccoli-taster or, since life is not always about the job, you shouldn’t feel compelled to eat broccoli because it’s “good for you”. Here’s another example. I have certain auditory skills which make it easy for me to transform any spoken language into written form (I don’t really know the physical basis of that ability but it would seem to be a fact about my auditory system), so recognition of this fact had a profound impact on my goals. If you are 5 ft. tall, it is pretty unlikely that pursuing a career as a professional basketball player is a rational goal; if you are color blind, then supposedly spectacular color stuff isn’t a value for you (sigh: still, the northern lights are nice even without the color).

I wouldn’t be so quick to discount or exclude facts. It can, in part, be your bones, which have an influence on how fast you are on your feet. There are a lot of things about mind differences that we don’t understand right now (that is to say, little that we do understand). What I think is most important is to understand what those facts are, rather then obsess over why they are facts. Wonder and investigate, not do not become paralyzed. If you really are crappy at math, then for pity’s sake, don’t pursue a career as a mathematician. If in fact you are really good at woodworking and you enjoy it, then please do make something out of wood. It would be nice to understand why it is that you are good at woodworking and why you enjoy it (see the appendix on introspection in ITOE for some discussion on how you might start to answer the question). Ultimately, you do want to understand what causes these facts about your nature, but you should never allow a lack of such understanding to prevent you from recognizing what your nature is.

[Seeker]

Okay, I read the ITOE appendix dealing with introspection. I think the upshot is to be honest, to think carefully about what you find in examining your own ideas and emotions, and to start with the base concepts and work up from there. The purpose is to come to an honest accounting of who you are with which to make decisions concerning which values and goals you ought to pursue.

Now here lies some difficulty, because what we are proven to be very good at and what we are interested in pursuing are not necessarily the same thing always. Talent can go largely untapped until it's discovered and an effort made to develop it. The mind is not a fixed thing. It can be developed. Given a healthy brain, new patterns of neurons and connections can be formed. We learn and develop new skills. What seems impossible to us may, in fact, be possible. It seems to me that high aspirations for growth are essential to flourishing. While I would not choose a value that I know to be unattainable, neither should I sell myself short by shying away from something that interests me and that I feel strongly about pursuing simply because I haven't yet become great at it, or because its attainment may be improbable.

There is a marvelous scene towards the end of The Fountainhead where Peter Keating goes to Howard Roark with some architectural drawings he produced and asks "is there any (hope)?" Roark replies, "it's too late" and feels pity. That passage has always troubled me. Maybe Keating was never that talented to begin with, but on the other hand who was Roark to tell him to give up on his dream? If Keating did possess some talent and made a big enough effort to correct his years of decay, and developed within himself the burning desire of Roark, would it not be possible for him to achieve some measure of greatness himself? Is time really so lethal? To put it another way, given that we aren't certain about our own capabilities at a given point in time, is it irrational to give ourselves the benefit of the doubt, so long as some evidence exists that success is possible? Isn't a burning passion crucial to overcoming such obstacles in any event?

I suggest that we are each capable of less than we wish, but more than we know. Given a passionate interest in something, ought we not pursue it so long as some evidence exists that success is possible?

If a professional broccoli-taster were the thing I desperately wanted to be more than anything, why let the hTAS2R38 gene stand in my way?

Edited October 29, 2006 by Seeker

[DavidOdden]

If a professional broccoli-taster were the thing I desperately wanted to be more than anything, why let the hTAS2R38 gene stand in my way?

What is the source of this passionate interest in broccoli-tasting? Did god speak to you one day and say "from this day forth, you will be a tormented soul unless you commit your life to broccoli tasting" (sadistic bastard!)? The point is to examine the source of your desparation.

[Seeker]

It certainly wouldn't be because God spoke to me. It would be because I found something joyous and tremendously life-affirming about tasting broccoli. My emotions would signal that, and my introspection would seek to explain it objectively. Perhaps (to use this example) there is something about the art of tasting broccoli that makes it an act of courage for me and a beautiful statement of defiance against death and unhappiness.

In my view, the objective evaluation is a life-maximizing function, where life is not a stagnant physical existence, but a directed effort that spreads orderly patterns of beauty to the greatest extent possible. Objective reasoning validates whether the specific dream we have chosen to pursue among the many open to us best fulfills that purpose. Am I right or wrong?

[Seeker]

In connection with our discussion on life as an end in itself, I posited that "the key is to ask, in regards to 'survival': survival as what? Not just as an organism, not just as an animal, not just as man - but as me particularly, in my essence" and that "a searching self-examination to objectively discover one's own 'essential' nature and what it objectively requires, would be necessary" to choose one's own specific values properly. My attention is now focused on defining the method of such a self-examination.

To begin, I note that the problem involves inductive reasoning to try to establish facts - about myself and the possibilities open to me in my specific, concrete reality. This means that the methods involved to contribute to specific conclusions may be valid though imperfect. It also implies, as with all things, the absolute necessity of a constant effort to acquire greater knowledge.

In the first step (and perhaps controversially), I believe that it is necessary to identify a burning desire for a particular value or values - not as short-term whims, but across the whole of my lifespan. There must be a deep-seated passion that outranks the others in intensity so strongly that it seems unquestionable - like Rearden running his mills or Dagny running her railroad. This is so because, as an inductive tool for discovering the facts of my particular identity qua me, nothing else can supply the cognitive sum total needed to direct me toward specific values given the innumerable choices open to me. In the same way that an artist's style depends upon his sense of life (as per Rand's The Romantic Manifesto), guiding innumerable artistic choices, so the choice of specific values, given the many alternatives available, reflects a personal style and identifying it must begin with burning passion. Intensity of desire for a given value emanates from the specific details of my needs deriving from my identity qua me, and thus serves as the primary method of their detection. Furthermore, the burning desire could reasonably be seen as the same thing as, or at least inextricably bound up in, the prerequisite will to live qua me that serves to enable the existence of values as such. The product of this step is a statement of specific values ranked by intensity of desire.

In the second step, reason functions as a check or tool of revision. Using introspection, I must inquire into and conceptualize the reasons for my intense desire for each value. If any contradictions arise, they must be taken into account and my values modified accordingly. In addition, the desired values must be possible for me to achieve in reality: here it is sufficient to build enough evidence to meet the standard of possible, not necessarily probable or certain, as impossibility would render my desired values irrational, while requiring a higher burden of proof than possible would foreclose my choosing the greatest challenges. Presumably, my sense of desire would not have been founded on so faulty an understanding of reality that it would be substantially negated. A statement of values that passed these hurdles would be complete.

Now my question is: Is this approach fully consistent with Objectivism? Or does the reliance on desire as the primary inductive tool by which to determine my essential values render it subjectivist? How else then to discover my essentials in sufficient completeness to choose specific values for life qua myself?

Edited November 14, 2006 by Seeker

[RichardParker]

I think your question boils down to what is an objectively valid starting point for such an analysis. The general starting point must be facts that are relevant to the particular circumstances of one’s life, but there are introspective as well as extrospective facts that must be identified.

While emotions are not tools of cognition, they are certainly introspective facts--if one feels a burning desire to pursue a particular value (love for another individual, a potential career), then this is certainly a fact. Ignoring such facts for fear that it might be subjectivist, in my view, would mean falling prey to a particular type of rationalism--emotional suppression/repression.

The next task, it seems, is to identify why one has an emotion/desire for a particular value. This, it seems, is a more difficult task than introspectively identifying the fact that one has an emotion/desire for an important value.

. . . here it is sufficient to build enough evidence to meet the standard of possible, not necessarily probable or certain, as impossibility would render my desired values irrational, while requiring a higher burden of proof than possible would foreclose my choosing the greatest challenges. . . .

Interesting analysis. Lately I’ve come to view the standard of probable as the minimal threshold, but I can see how the threshold of probable might be too high and preclude one from pursuing desirable choices/values that might be within one’s grasp.

Edited November 14, 2006 by RichardParker

[RichardParker]

There is a marvelous scene towards the end of The Fountainhead where Peter Keating goes to Howard Roark with some architectural drawings he produced and asks "is there any (hope)?" Roark replies, "it's too late" and feels pity. That passage has always troubled me. Maybe Keating was never that talented to begin with, but on the other hand who was Roark to tell him to give up on his dream? If Keating did possess some talent and made a big enough effort to correct his years of decay, and developed within himself the burning desire of Roark, would it not be possible for him to achieve some measure of greatness himself? Is time really so lethal?

This passage has always troubled me as well. Perhaps by this time Roark had become so disgusted with Keating that he simply couldn't muster the effort required to provide any hopeful reassurance that there is even the possibility of Keating ever achieving his dream. In the beginning of the novel Roark tells Keating that it was a mistake for him to ask what he should do about his future, and perhaps this time around Roark wasn't about to provide any hopeful guidance. Maybe the point was that if Keating hadn't learned by now not to rely on the opinions of others to tell him what he should do, then there really was no hope for him.

At times there seems to be a very thin line between independence and the basic human desire for hopeful reassurance from time to time.

[softwareNerd]

Perhaps it's Rand's literary way of denying that "there's always hope" and stating, instead, that sometimes people can be so far gone that they cannot undo the damage.

[RichardParker]

Perhaps it's Rand's literary way of denying that "there's always hope" and stating, instead, that sometimes people can be so far gone that they cannot undo the damage.

Keating may have had no hope, but “no hope” for what?

“No hope” for waltzing into the art world the same way he waltzed into the world of architecture, on the fleeting and transient backs of prestige and others (like Roark) who had more talent and discipline than he and thereby becoming a world famous artist? For such a thing Keating certainly had no hope, and I think this is what Ayn Rand had in mind.

But suppose he had undergone the type of introspective analysis Seeker is talking about? Like any other human being, Keating possessed a volitional consciousness, and suppose he had chosen to make use of this?

Suppose he had introspected and discovered that he truly loved painting, and loved it so much that he was willing to undergo the hardship and self-discipline required to achieve even the smallest measure of success as a painter, thereby achieving even the smallest sense of accomplishment and happiness, and that this choice was infinitely more preferable than the alternative he faced-- the miserable and desperate end his current choices were leading him?

I am not by any means an apologist for a Keating-type, but my point is that because man has volition and so long as an individual does not irreversibly violate the rights of another individual (for all of his disgraceful faults, Keating was no murderer, child molester, etc.), I think that ethically there is hope for happiness if (and only if) the individual undergo the type of introspective analysis Seeker describes.

There was one step Keating had to make to achieve his dream and happiness, and this was to become indifferent to the opinion of others. As demonstrated by the scene in which he succumbs to the opinion of Roark, he was unwilling to take this step and I think this is the lesson to be learned from this passage.

[Inspector]

This passage has always troubled me as well. Perhaps by this time Roark had become so disgusted with Keating that he simply couldn't muster the effort required to provide any hopeful reassurance that there is even the possibility of Keating ever achieving his dream.

I doubt it. His tone was that of pity, if memory serves. You're not considering how bad the drawings likely were.

Have you read Rand's Compraccicos of the Mind? I think this is a point about the fact that some kinds of epistemological damage just go too deep to be easily healed as an adult...

Edited November 15, 2006 by Inspector

[RichardParker]

Have you read Rand's Compraccicos of the Mind? I think this is a point about the fact that some kinds of epistemological damage just go too deep to be easily healed as an adult...

I may have read it a few years back but no longer remember much about it. Thanks, I'll have to re-read it.

Edited November 15, 2006 by RichardParker

[RichardParker]

Have you read Rand's Compraccicos of the Mind? I think this is a point about the fact that some kinds of epistemological damage just go too deep to be easily healed as an adult...

I may have read it a few years back but no longer remember much about it. Thanks, I'll have to re-read it.

The actual title of the article is _The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution_The Comprachicos_ and can be found in the Objectivism Research CD, published by Phil Oliver.

The article is a stinging denouncement of most of the educational establishment, as it existed in the later half of the twentieth century. It is also an excellent analysis of the psycho-epistemological needs of the developing mind, as well as the motives and means of its destruction by the educational establishment. While Ayn Rand makes it very clear that once the mind has been damaged beyond a certain point, reversing this damage is improbable, she falls short of saying that self-reversing this damage by an exceptionally motivated, intelligent, courageous and ambitious individual is impossible.

In the article Ayn Rand quotes at least one scientific paper from that time in which it was claimed that such a process of psycho-epistemological reversal is highly improbable, since this presumably would require the development of new neuronal connections, a process which was formerly believed not to occur into adulthood. I'd like to point out, however, that there is more recent scientific evidence in the neurosciences that man indeed retains the capacity to develop more neuronal conditions, even in advanced age. It is certainly conceivable that had Miss Rand had this recent scientific data available at the time she wrote the article in the 1970’s, she may have drawn a different conclusion.

In regards to Keating the issue becomes not so much how bad the painting was that he showed Roark, but rather was he an exceptionally motivated, intelligent, courageous and ambitious individual? Certainly the general quality of the painting would give an indication of how severely Keating’s mind had been injured, and therefore what the magnitude of such a task might be, but more importantly did he posses the courage to even begin such a process?

To what degree, if any, did Keating demonstrate any courage?

In Keating’s case, the short answer is none, so there probably was little hope for him. The more important general lesson from all this however, is that if he had the courage for such a task, there would have been nothing philosophically nor biologically that would have made such an undertaking impossible.

Edited November 15, 2006 by RichardParker

[Seeker]

Seems sensible. Recovery may be improbable, but possible in some degree given a functioning consciousness.

On the topic of my proposed method of introspection, would anyone care to offer their own variation, or to challenge the ideas I presented?

Edited November 16, 2006 by Seeker

[RichardParker]

In connection with our discussion on life as an end in itself, I

Now my question is: Is this approach fully consistent with Objectivism? Or does the reliance on desire as the primary inductive tool by which to determine my essential values render it subjectivist? How else then to discover my essentials in sufficient completeness to choose specific values for life qua myself?

I think it depends what you mean by "desire as the primary inductive tool." If you mean desire as a means of cognition, then no, what you are suggesting is definately subjectivist. If you mean desire as an inductive starting point (desire as an emotional fact) to determine whether you should pursue the possibility of a particular value, then no, I think what you are saying is consistent with Objectivism.

You might try asking yourself if you do not use desire as a starting point to determine whether you should pursue a particular goal, what should you then use? If not desire, what is going to sustain you through all of the hardships and challenges you are going to face as you pursue your goal, prsesuming you've set your standards to the limits of what you think you can possibly achieve?

Edited November 16, 2006 by RichardParker

[softwareNerd]

On Peter Keating...

I think what Rand is saying (using Keating) is this: consciousness has identity; its volitional nature makes it malleable, but that does not mean it is infinitely malleable.

Keating has lived a lifetime of other-directedness that he has automatized. When he looks at something he has made and asks himself, "is it good", he is thinking about what others will say about it. Over time, this has slowly destroyed his self-esteem to the point that he does not have enough of the spark required to bootstrap himself to a radical change. If he hits a tough spot (him against popular conventional), he simply does not have the confidence to think independently.

Perhaps if Keating had a great psychologist who could be there to help him through each step, and if he had many years ahead of him to work rebuild his self-esteem and unlearn his bad thinking habits, then he could emerge "fixed". Indeed, I think that, had it served the purpose of the novel, Rand could have depicted a Keating who had realized his problem and who shows a spark that tells the reader that he might actually be able to work through it. Of Keating, Rand journaled the following:

Keating ... ... it is only when people begin to desert him that he begins to question his own soul, to realize dimly what it was that he missed, what it was that he had always envied, feared and resented in Roark. When he understands it, it is too late. We leave him, a man without hope, without future, without past, a man who had lived through others, had brought them nothing but sorrow and left them nothing but bad imitations of every bad building created before him. (emphasis added)

I think Rand's choice of ending for Keating is to show that there can be a line across which there is no return, at least not in a practical time-frame. The idea that it can be "too late" to change is repeated in Wynand's ending (particularly in the movie). Again, from Rand's journals:

She knows that she and Wynand have both found the same thing in Roark; only it is too late for Wynand ....(emphasis added)

Switching to her non-fiction, here is the passage the Inspector referred to above...

Volition, however, does not mean non-identity; it does not mean that one can misuse one's mind indefinitely without suffering permanent damage. But it does mean that so long as a child is not insane, he has the power to correct many faults in his mental functioning, and many injuries, whether they are self-inflicted or imposed on him from the outside. The latter are easier to correct than the former.

The evidence indicates that some graduates of the Progressive nursery schools do recover and others do not—and that their recovery depends on the degree of their "non-adjustment," i.e., the degree to which they rejected the school's conditioning. By "recovery" I mean the eventual development of a rational psycho-epistemology, i.e., of the ability to deal with reality by means of conceptual knowledge.

In addition, I remember somewhere Rand gave an example of an author who took the view that he would start off by writing trash, earning lots of money doing so, and then -- once he was rich -- he would write a great masterpiece. She explained how this was easier said than done. If someone has a reference, I'd appreciate it if they posted it here.

In a letter, Ayn Rand again echoes the idea that at some point (some age?) habits of thinking become "permanent".

Dear Mr. Nicholas:

I can sympathize with the fact that you feel fear when you look at the present state of the world, but I hope that this is not your chronic emotion. It is too early to feel fear of the future when one is under 30, and too late after that. What I mean is that one must never allow fear to become one's permanent sense of life.... (emphasis added)

However, in another letter she says this:

It is never too late to start on a new road, and it is certainly not too late for you. If there's one thing I have learned by personal experience and by observing the people around me, it's that a person's life actually starts from about 35 on; I mean, the best and the most active part of one's life. Up to that time one merely learns and accumulates experience. ...

I would summarize my understanding of Rand's position as follows: there is a certain level of automatized secondhandness that eats away at one's self-esteem to such an extent, that -- at some stage of deterioration -- one does not have even the sliver of self-confidence required to begin a process of change. I hate to say it's impossible, but it might be, in the context of the years of damage and the years left to go.

[Seeker]

I think it depends what you mean by "desire as the primary inductive tool." If you mean desire as a means of cognition, then no, what you are suggesting is definately subjectivist. If you mean desire as an inductive starting point (desire as an emotional fact) to determine whether you should pursue the possibility of a particular value, then no, I think what you are saying is consistent with Objectivism.

You might try asking yourself if you do not use desire as a starting point to determine whether you should pursue a particular goal, what should you then use? If not desire, what is going to sustain you through all of the hardships and challenges you are going to face as you pursue your goal, prsesuming you've set your standards to the limits of what you think you can possibly achieve?

I do mean the latter - every lead needs to be independently checked by reason. Now what seems important is not only that desire is a manifestation of will, which is a prerequisite to action and necessary to sustain effort through challenges, but also that the kinds of values one finds this way invariably are examples of self-assertion: creating, spreading, growing, asserting, expressing, etc. - as though what the subconscious has done is to calculate the greatest means of impressing oneself upon reality (at least this is what I have personally found). BUT - I am not sure whether this is the sought-after essential fact, or merely a byproduct of having used "burning desire" as the starting point as opposed to say, sublime love or some other shade of feeling. I think that it may indeed be the essential fact, because when I inquire into what is most important about the value in question, the answer is always ultimately "because this is the best way to assert myself, which is what my survival demands." It is a view very evocative of Nietzsche, I think. If that is the essential standard to be applied, then whether the proposed value indeed enables the greatest possibility of self-assertion can be determined. My question is whether that is the correct standard, or whether I have veered into an incorrect idea.

Edited November 16, 2006 by Seeker

[RichardParker]

I do mean the latter - every lead needs to be independently checked by reason. Now what seems important is not only that desire is a manifestation of will, which is a prerequisite to action and necessary to sustain effort through challenges, but also that the kinds of values one finds this way invariably are examples of self-assertion: creating, spreading, growing, asserting, expressing, etc. - as though what the subconscious has done is to calculate the greatest means of impressing oneself upon reality (at least this is what I have personally found). BUT - I am not sure whether this is the sought-after essential fact, or merely a byproduct of having used "burning desire" as the starting point as opposed to say, sublime love or some other shade of feeling. I think that it may indeed be the essential fact, because when I inquire into what is most important about the value in question, the answer is always ultimately "because this is the best way to assert myself, which is what my survival demands." It is a view very evocative of Nietzsche, I think. If that is the essential standard to be applied, then whether the proposed value indeed enables the greatest possibility of self-assertion can be determined. My question is whether that is the correct standard, or whether I have veered into an incorrect idea.

The distinction between will and desire is already explicit in what you are saying above. The issue of whether the kinds of desires one finds this way are invariably examples of self-assertion, creating and achieving is another matter entirely. You say you have inductively discovered that thus far they are, but have you validated this conceptually by the virtues required to achieve these values?

It seems that you already have inductive evidence that the desires you have discovered this way are always the type that have affirmed your ability for achievement. In other words, these desires have proven, at least inductively, that they are life affirming, they have pointed you toward life affirming values, and provided you with the emotional fuel to succesfully meet the challenges you've had to meet. So far so good, but it seems what you are asking for is another objective means of validating whether this is true invariably.

I think there are two ways of answering this question. First, if you've demonstrated to yourself inductively that your idea is correct, do you really need another form of validation? While I think that another form of validation is not necessary, certainly another form of validation would provide more confidence that you've come accross a valid idea so that you can move on. Well, what other form of reasoning is there, other than induction? Deduction of course (lest anyone make the claim that I'm being rationalistic in pointing this out, my answer is that I'm not claiming the supremecy of deduction over induction; on the contrary, I've already stated that another form of validation other than induction is not necessary).

So how does one validate such an idea deductively? Since we are talking about the pursuit of values and it is virtue that we use to obtain these, the answer is that any additional form of validation whether a desire identified in such a manner invariably will lead to life affirming values must involve the analysis of the virtues you've used to obtain these values. Where these virtues objectively life affirming? Where they Objectivist virtues?

Edited November 17, 2006 by RichardParker

[RichardParker]

My spell checker for some reason exchanged "were" with "where." I think it is fairly obvious that my last two sentence should read as follows:

Were these life affirming virtues? Were these Objectivist virtues.

[Seeker]

My concern was with the validity of the ideas I was generating, but I reviewed OPAR on this point and satisfied myself that it is possible to establish their validity such that I would be acting ethically.

Edited November 17, 2006 by Seeker

[RichardParker]

My concern was with the validity of the ideas I was generating, but I reviewed OPAR on this point and satisfied myself that it is possible to establish their validity such that I would be acting ethically.

Reviewing OPAR is always a good choice.

But to answer the question of the titel of this thread Why is the Good not a subjective choice? is that the Good is the means of achieving happiness. As such, the Good is the instrument of achievement with happiness as the end and virtue(s) as the particular means. If desire is to be one starting point for inducing goals or values to be achieved, then validation of this idea means validating the means of achieving the end.

Insofar as validating the means (virtues) of achieving the end (happines), I refer you to VOS.

Edited November 18, 2006 by RichardParker

[RichardParker]

I would summarize my understanding of Rand's position as follows: there is a certain level of automatized secondhandness that eats away at one's self-esteem to such an extent, that -- at some stage of deterioration -- one does not have even the sliver of self-confidence required to begin a process of change. I hate to say it's impossible, but it might be, in the context of the years of damage and the years left to go.

I think this is true, but in regards to Keating in particular, I'm wondering if Ayn Rand was using his character as a mere literally device or if she actually knew someone who was as second-handed as he was. What I mean here is that practically everything he achieved that was of any significance was second-handed, including his academic achievements--while in architectural school, Roark even did his important class assignments for him.

On second thought, as I reflect on what she wrote on so-called progressive education, it is very well possible that she actually knew such a person. So yes, I think that it is certainly possible that mental decay could be so far advanced that any recovery is unlikely.