Roark the dynamiter

[whYNOT]

DonAthos, on 13 Feb 2013 - 19:43, said:

This may be way off-base on my part -- I'm no Ayn Rand scholar -- but is it also at least possible that Rand's views may have changed or shifted or further developed after writing The Fountainhead? Do we know whether she arrived clearly at a "non-initiation of force principle" by that point in time?

I've heard it said that Rand went through something like a Nietzschean (sp?) phase during her youth... and the idea that maybe certain "moral rules" don't quite apply to a heroic creator like a Roark (which maybe are echoed in some of whYNOT's posts here, too) strikes me as being sympathetic to my ignorant layman's conception of Nietzsche.

DonAthos, on 13 Feb 2013 - 19:43, said:

This may be way off-base on my part -- I'm no Ayn Rand scholar -- but is it also at least possible that Rand's views may have changed or shifted or further developed after writing The Fountainhead? Do we know whether she arrived clearly at a "non-initiation of force principle" by that point in time?

I've heard it said that Rand went through something like a Nietzschean (sp?) phase during her youth... and the idea that maybe certain "moral rules" don't quite apply to a heroic creator like a Roark (which maybe are echoed in some of whYNOT's posts here, too) strikes me as being sympathetic to my ignorant layman's conception of Nietzsche.

Don, An honest appraisal, with some legitimacy. Yes, Rand evidently moved away from Nietzsche

very early on, before TF, I believe - but vestiges still remained.

I read "Thus Spoke...", and can understand her early infatuation with him. But also quite clearly

understand her later rejection(as "irrational" and "mystic") of him too.

Yet, no doubt, into later years with Atlas, she condemned the judgment of the collective upon

the individual, continuously. Though Atlas is more concerned with Society's enslavement of the individual, as I don't need to tell you.

"Civilisation is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public,

ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilisation is the process of setting man free from men."

Do individual rights, and individual morality ever conflict? was my concern, at bottom.

I've read your earlier reply carefully; I think your interpretation is sound. I agree.

Also,I do not think you should break into a house to retrieve your painting, btw!

Having said that, I can still see a minor gap. You know a rational egoist by his actions, you said. Absolutely. Yet, how does a rational egoist know himself?

Additionally, I think we may have a tendency to expect society to become something staidly conservative.

But if all I've done is to play devil's advocate in this, and raise some

thoughts - good.

(And if a man insults my wife, he gets a punch on the nose - and I will happily be arrested for Initiation of Force!)

Edited February 13, 2013 by whYNOT

[Jonathan13]

J. "Rand split the aesthetic from the moral..." Where do you get this?

 

I get it from her writings on the subject, including the quote that I just provided in my last post. Looking up "eesthetic judgment" in the AR Lexicon. She very clearly separates aesthetic judgments from moral ones -- her view was that an artwork which presents a morally evil view can nevertheless be aesthetically great; one's agreeing or disagreeing with the moral content of a work of art has no relevance to making an aesthetic appraisal of it.

 

Are you claiming Rand contradicted herself?

 

On this issue, no, I am not saying that Rand contradicted herself. Rather, I'm saying that your position doesn't accurately represent what she believed.

 

Is it that you don't approve of morality within aesthetics? Or is it that you do not agree with the morality, rational egoism, itself?

 

Are you asking me if I approve of the idea of a moral point of view being included in a work of art? If so, yes, I approve. Or are you asking me if I think that one's ethical beliefs should affect one's aesthetic judgments of a work of art? If so, then no, I don't believe that. I agree with Rand that one's ethical beliefs should have no bearing on one's aesthetic judgments of works of art.

 

As for your second question, I agree with the morality of rational egoism.

 

I believe you could read those quotes again.

"Her goal was not to present morally perfect characters..." [J.]

"...but the image of a moral PERSON." [AR]

Second, an out of context quote - about a criminal! - from her Journals, on 'Jan16', means little, here.

It's not an out of context quote and it's not "about a criminal." It's about her views on the aesthetics of presenting a morally righteous, heroic sense of life in a work of art while placing no importance on particular immoral actions taken by the character who is embodying that sense of life.

 

Do you think she changed her mind about Roark "as the image of a moral person" in later life?

No, I think that you misunderstood what she meant by "image of a moral person."

 

Apparently you do.("According to the convictions she held at the time." [J.])

My comment "according to the convictions she held at the time" has relevance only to that previous OL discussion from which I quoted myself. It was a reference to the fact that Rand's view over time were unchanged on the subject of "faking reality," and that she was aware that some of her characters' actions were immoral by her own standards (which did not change over time). I would suggest that you read that OL thread if you truly want to understand the context of why I used that phrase.

 

Show me that, in her words, then.

Third, it's disingenuous to claim I am deriving a morality from TF.

(I read it last at least 20 years ago, if that says anything one way or other.)

I was the one who opposed literalism ("a text-book") repeatedly, earlier - you recall?

I made the statement that AR meant readers to take the morality literally, NOT Roark's acts.

The problem is that you've also made statements to the contrary on this thread. You've been saying one thing and then arguing the other, and then not answering people's questions when they're trying to get you to clarify which of the two contradicting positions you actually hold.

 

I've used my own examples, my own reasons - and just once mentioned Rand's intent, with Roark's

actions. That I might be wrong, on morals over rights, is hardly relevant, here.

My morality is derived elsewhere, and only supported to some extent by Rand's characters'

moral sense of life.

And you?

Me? As I've already said on this thread, I don't share your position that one can be behaving morally while destroying others' property or otherwise violating someone else's property rights. I don't share your belief that "When a man's values are being violated it is an attack on his mind. This is force." I don't share your belief that your actions are moral if you are willing to do the time for having done a crime in order to protect something that you objectively value but which is someone else's property.

J

[whYNOT]

I get it from her writings on the subject, including the quote that I just provided in my last post. Looking up "eesthetic judgment" in the AR Lexicon. She very clearly separates aesthetic judgments from moral ones -- her view was that an artwork which presents a morally evil view can nevertheless be aesthetically great; one's agreeing or disagreeing with the moral content of a work of art has no relevance to making an aesthetic appraisal of it.

 

J

Again, you've found a red-herring citation about what AR thought about "Naturalist" art - certainly

not Romantic.

i.e. that it can be morally corrupt, but aesthetically great. In that context, one should separate

one from the other, she's saying. No?

That she made this distinction for, I repeat, non-Romantic art, alone.

Do you have any doubt that Romantic art must, should and does, combine the two?

(With the grasp of The Romantic Manifesto that you have - and which I've remarked on

before, I find it strange.)

The chapter is "Art and Moral Treason": titled such, for a good reason.

"Just as Romantic art is a man's first glimpse of a moral sense of life,

so it is his last hold on it, his last lifeline."

[Jonathan13]

Again, you've found a red-herring citation about what AR thought about "Naturalist" art - certainly not Romantic.

 

Wrong. Rand's statement about aesthetic judgment does not apply only to naturalist art. It applies to all works of art. Her position -- the Objectivist position -- is that a viewer or reader's moral views have no relevance in making aesthetic judgments of any and all works of art. Agreeing or disagreeing with the moral content of a work of art is irrelevant to an aesthetic appraisal of it.

 

i.e. that it can be morally corrupt, but aesthetically great. In that context, one should separate one from the other, she's saying. No?

No, she is saying that the morality of the content of a work of art is always separate from a proper aesthetic appraisal of it. Not only is she saying that an artwork which contains evil moral content can be judged to be aesthetically great, but she is also saying that a work of art can be morally great and be judged to be aesthetically terrible. She is saying that the correctness or incorrectness of an artwork's moral content has no relevance to its aesthetic value.

 

That she made this distinction for, I repeat, non-Romantic art, alone.

Wrong, for the reasons that I've stated above.

 

Do you have any doubt that Romantic art must, should and does, combine the two? (With the grasp of The Romantic Manifesto that you have - and which I've remarked on before, I find it strange.)

Romanticism, according to Rand, presents man as choosing his values and as pursuing them. Her view of Romanticism does not require a presentation of man as morally perfect in pursing his values. A heroic character can be overzealous in pursing his values, step over the line and commit immoral deeds, and yet the work of art which contains the character can still qualify as Romanticism. Romanticism is an aesthetic style, not a moral one, which presents a type of man or an attitude toward existence. It presents grand, heroic, larger-than-life events which portray man as strong and as capable of choosing and acting to achieve his goals. It doesn't specify what those goals must be, which morality must guide him, or that he must not deviate from his own or the reader's morals in pursuit of his goals. And therefore a story about a larger-than-life criminal or a heroic "noble crook" (as Rand called it) can qualify as Romanticism.

 

The chapter is "Art and Moral Treason": titled such, for a good reason. "Just as Romantic art is a man's first glimpse of a moral sense of life, so it is his last hold on it, his last lifeline."

Do you believe that either Howard Roark must be considered to be morally perfect or that Rand must be judged to have committed moral treason in her art by writing The Fountainhead and creating a heroic character who violates his own morals, as well as the author's?

J

[intellectualammo]

In his defense speech:

"They took the benefit of my work and made me contribute it as a gift."

They, in fact, did not make him contribute it as a gift. He is the one that set the terms. They, in fact, did not make him do anything.

For someone that cares that much about his work, don't design/erect it unless you have legally binding contracts. It was his own mistake/risk he took and made others pay for it by dynamiting it. He should have at least gotten 10yrs sentencing. I bet Toohey would have enjoyed being a prison guard, he'd really of gotten his rocks off, not in Roarks mouth or ass, but by making him take his orders: move when he is told to, etc and if he doesn't, beat him with a rubber hose. (P.663)

[ruveyn1]

In his defense speech:

"They took the benefit of my work and made me contribute it as a gift."

They, in fact, did not make him contribute it as a gift. He is the one that set the terms. They, in fact, did not make him do anything.

For someone that cares that much about his work, don't design/erect it unless you have legally binding contracts. It was his own mistake/risk he took and made others pay for it by dynamiting it. He should have at least gotten 10yrs sentencing. I bet Toohey would have enjoyed being a prison guard, he'd really of gotten his rocks off, not in Roarks mouth or ass, but by making him take his orders: move when he is told to, etc and if he doesn't, beat him with a rubber hose. (P.663)

Roarke and Peter Keating entered into a contract.  Roarkes design would be used and Keating would use his "pull"  to get the thing built.  Keating failed to keep his end of the bargain so Roark dynamited the building which was based on a corruption of his design.

 

ruveyn1

[intellectualammo]

Has that not already been addressed in this thread?

[softwareNerd]

Roarke and Peter Keating entered into a contract.  Roarkes design would be used and Keating would use his "pull"  to get the thing built.  Keating failed to keep his end of the bargain so Roark dynamited the building which was based on a corruption of his design.

Yes, this is nearly how Roark sees it (witness the core of his statement for the defense). "Almost" in the sense that Roark does not blame Keating primarily, but claims that Keating tried to stick by the contract as best he could, but was not allowed to do so. Edited February 15, 2013 by softwareNerd

[intellectualammo]

No, he failed to, I think. If it even can be considered a legal contract. But regardless of its legality, what Roark did was immoral and unlawful and unwarranted.

Edited February 15, 2013 by intellectualammo

[softwareNerd]

But regardless of its legality, what Roark did was immoral and unlawful and unwarranted.

No, it was definitely not immoral. I imagine it must have been unlawful. Edited February 15, 2013 by softwareNerd

[intellectualammo]

He initiated force and the manner in which he did was both unlawful and would be immoral according to Objectivist morality, I think. A breach of contract if it is even a legal contract, does not warrant the actions he took. You head to the courtroom. And if its not legally binding, which would be NO surprise him if it wasn't, then the moral action to take would to acknowledge his own mistake in entering into such a "contract" in the first place. If he could enter a real one, and still did it, and Keating did not come through on his end, then that's that. You don't go dynamiting it.

But yet he does.

He failed to cover his own ass from getting fucked, so he should have just taken it like a man then.

Edited February 15, 2013 by intellectualammo

[Jonathan13]

He initiated force and the manner in which he did was both unlawful and would be immoral according to Objectivist morality, I think. A breach of contract if it is even a legal contract, does not warrant the actions he took. You head to the courtroom. And if its not legally binding, which would be NO surprise him if it wasn't, then the moral action to take would to acknowledge his own mistake in entering into such a "contract" in the first place. If he could enter a real one, and still did it, and Keating did not come through on his end, then that's that. You don't go dynamiting it.

But yet he does.

 

Not only that, but it's not moral or legal to conspire to commit the fraud of passing off one's work as someone else's. Ask Fab and Rob of Milli Vanilli about it. When one's partner in fraud enters into a contract with others by passing off one's work as his own, he is going into the contract with the intention of violating it. One then doesn't have the right to claim that the other side didn't hold up their end of the contract.

 

J

[Jonathan13]

No, it was definitely not immoral. I imagine it must have been unlawful.

 

It is an obvious, objectively observable fact that Roark's conspiring with Keating was immoral by Objectivist standards. It was dishonest. It was intentional. The two of them actively hid Roark's involvement from the project's owners. They lied when questioned about it by others. Roark specifically states that he knows that no committee, public or private, will hire him. In conspiring with Keating, he knowingly violates their right to not hire him. He also explicitly states his moral objections to the existence of such government projects, but then proceeds to act against his own stated morality by working on it. Roark's courtroom explanation does not reflect the reality of what happened. The owners did not take the benefit of his work and make him contribute it as a gift. He pushed his way onto the project without their knowledge. They didn't ask him for anything, but in fact made it clear to him that they wouldn't hire him.

 

Roark's actions were immoral on multiple counts.

 

J

Edited February 15, 2013 by Jonathan13

[tadmjones]

who cares, he was a ginger right

maybe Rand just didn't mention that the actual dynamiter was really a doppleganger that even fooled DF but Howard realised this and decided to let himself be tried

[intellectualammo]

Roark's actions were immoral on multiple counts.

I am beginning to see that, what you just said I find compelling. Thank you for contributing to this thread discussion here.

[whYNOT]

I am beginning to see that, what you just said I find compelling. Thank you for contributing to this thread discussion here.

Quite right. Rand intended to portray an immoral figure as a hero.

In contradiction to her ethics, and her formulation and comprehension of Romanticism.

We've moved from literalism, through rationalization, into complete evasion.

Again: morality derived from individual rights.

The crux of the libertarian/Objectivist divide.

Edited February 15, 2013 by whYNOT

[softwareNerd]

There are some earlier threads that discuss the question of whether Roark was a lying fraud who was both a rapist and arsonist. Here is one, but a search brings up more (try rape too).

Update: This thread finally grew quite long. Even so, many arguments for Roark's actions being moral have not been made in this thread. Anyone curious about the topic should do a search. Check out the thread linked in this post for starters, but do a search to find more.

Edited March 11, 2013 by softwareNerd

[whYNOT]

Wrong. Rand's statement about aesthetic judgment does not apply only to naturalist art. It applies to all works of art. Her position -- the Objectivist position -- is that a viewer or reader's moral views have no relevance in making aesthetic judgments of any and all works of art. Agreeing or disagreeing with the moral content of a work of art is irrelevant to an aesthetic appraisal of it.

 

No, she is saying that the morality of the content of a work of art is always separate from a proper aesthetic appraisal of it. Not only is she saying that an artwork which contains evil moral content can be judged to be aesthetically great, but she is also saying that a work of art can be morally great and be judged to be aesthetically terrible. She is saying that the correctness or incorrectness of an artwork's moral content has no relevance to its aesthetic value.

 

Wrong, for the reasons that I've stated above.

 

Romanticism, according to Rand, presents man as choosing his values and as pursuing them. Her view of Romanticism does not require a presentation of man as morally perfect in pursing his values. A heroic character can be overzealous in pursing his values, step over the line and commit immoral deeds, and yet the work of art which contains the character can still qualify as Romanticism. Romanticism is an aesthetic style, not a moral one, which presents a type of man or an attitude toward existence. It presents grand, heroic, larger-than-life events which portray man as strong and as capable of choosing and acting to achieve his goals. It doesn't specify what those goals must be, which morality must guide him, or that he must not deviate from his own or the reader's morals in pursuit of his goals. And therefore a story about a larger-than-life criminal or a heroic "noble crook" (as Rand called it) can qualify as Romanticism.

 

Do you believe that either Howard Roark must be considered to be morally perfect or that Rand must be judged to have committed moral treason in her art by writing The Fountainhead and creating a heroic character who violates his own morals, as well as the author's?

J

There are so many fallacies and wrongful assessments of me here, I won't try to rebut them.

The false premise, I will.

"The motive and purpose of my writing is the projection of an ideal man.

The portrayal of a moral ideal, as my ultimate literary goal, as an end in itself.."

[...]

"My purpose, first cause and prime mover is the portrayal of Howard Roark or John

Galt or Hank Rearden or ...AS AN END IN HIMSELF..."[TRM]

However Roark is being perceived in this thread, is it not clear how Rand perceived her creation!?

And her definition: "Romanticism is a category of art based on the recognition

of the principle that man possesses the faculty of volition."

She also states, that broadly "Naturalism...denies it."

Volition. Volition to what? Choice of which? The choice of reason. The choice to live according to

what is right and proper to man. Virtue and value, so... morality.

[Romanticism might be simply regarded as bridging the Is-Ought false dichotomy through art

i.e. existence embracing the normative (the moral)]IMO.

"Romantic writers did not record the events that HAD happened, but projected the events

that SHOULD happen."

[AR]

Therefore, Romanticist aesthetics is inseparable from its ethics. That AR distinguished them for ANOTHER type of art - has nothing to do with that.

With your understanding (I'd thought) of Romanticism, how do you manage to divorce them in your mind?

Edited February 15, 2013 by whYNOT

[Dante]

Not only that, but it's not moral or legal to conspire to commit the fraud of passing off one's work as someone else's. Ask Fab and Rob of Milli Vanilli about it. When one's partner in fraud enters into a contract with others by passing off one's work as his own, he is going into the contract with the intention of violating it. One then doesn't have the right to claim that the other side didn't hold up their end of the contract.

 

J

 

The fraud and the dynamiting are two separate issues.  On the subject of the fraud, Roark realizes and admits that he was wrong to engage in it and pass off his work as Keating's.  This is part of his character progression; he initially doesn't see the harm in helping Peter, he feels sorry for him, etc.  However, by the end, he has made this realization:

 

I'm guilty too.  We both are... It's I who've destroyed you, Peter.  From the beginning.  By helping you.  There are matters in which one should not ask for help nor give it.  I shouldn't have done your projects at Stanton.  I shouldn't have done the Cosmo-Slotnick building.  Nor Cortlandt.  I loaded you with more than you can carry.  It's like an electric current too strong for the circuit.  It blows the fuse.  Now we'll both pay for it.  It will be hard on you, but it will be harder on me. (pp. 611, centennial edition)

 

Roark begins the novel with a mistaken premise and an inadequate understanding of the consequences of helping Keating in this way.  The progression of the novel then illustrates, to Roark and to us, the consequences of this error.  In this respect, it's much like Rearden's initial flawed approach to dealing with family obligation: the events of the novel illustrate to him and to us the error in his thinking.

 

The dynamiting is not a deliberate error Rand is using in this way.  Rather, it is a powerful aesthetic statement about artistic integrity; Roark takes the only action possible to him that will protect the integrity of his work.  The dynamiting and the fraud serve different purposes and are used in different ways in the novel, and must be analyzed differently.

[DonAthos]

"The motive and purpose of my writing is the projection of an ideal man.

The portrayal of a moral ideal, as my ultimate literary goal, as an end in itself.."

[...]

"My purpose, first cause and prime mover is the portrayal of Howard Roark or John

Galt or Hank Rearden or ...AS AN END IN HIMSELF..."[TRM]

However Roark is being perceived in this thread, is it not clear how Rand perceived her creation!?

 

I think that this is right. I think that Roark and Galt and Rearden, etc., are meant as projections of ideal men, per Rand. Does this also mean that they are morally perfect men? What would "moral perfection" mean in this context, anyways?  That they never make mistakes?  Never evade?  Never act contrary to their own best interests?

It's interesting, because it seems to me that this question strikes at the heart of many controversies which -- in my admittedly limited experience -- tend to plague the Objectivist community. Perhaps it is unsurprising that this topic is so contentious.

As I write this, I've noticed that Dante has replied in his usual excellent manner -- and with an admission of guilt from Roark, no less, which is... monumental for the topic under discussion. If I take this as an expression of moral culpability (and I see no other reasonable way to take it, though perhaps someone else will suggest one), then where does it leave us with the idea of "Roark as moral ideal"? Is he only "the moral ideal" at the very conclusion of the novel (or perhaps one sentence past), when he has learned every lesson that the novel was set to teach? Or is it allowable that Roark will make mistakes as he learns and grows? That he was "the moral ideal" all along, despite what are obviously immoral actions and, I would argue, implicit evasions?  (Though, again, I do not know whether Rand had developed her theory of "evasion" yet...)

Could it be that a "morally perfect" man will yet make moral mistakes... but he will learn, and (as here) apologize, and seek to make amends, and resolve not to repeat those mistakes that he commits...? I rather hope so, else I'm not certain that such "moral perfection" is apt to measure anything about human beings, except perhaps in a manner fit for Catholics.

In any event, Roark's culpability here (insofar as we trust him to identify his own error) I think should conclusively answer the question as to whether or not Rand's heroes -- "moral ideals" or not, and whatever we take that to mean -- may yet act immorally within her fiction. It is not enough to say that Rand's hero did X to conclude that X is a moral action, within Objectivism as developed in her later writings, or even within Rand's moral understanding at the time of writing the fiction in question.

 

And her definition: "Romanticism is a category of art based on the recognition

of the principle that man possesses the faculty of volition."

She also states, that broadly "Naturalism...denies it."

Volition. Volition to what? Choice of which? The choice of reason. The choice to live according to

what is right and proper to man. Virtue and value, so... morality.

 

I think if we take this formulation too strictly, however, we reach the conclusion that all Romanticism portrays Objectivism/Objectivist heroes, and that there is no Romanticism apart from that.

Volition yes, but not everything that a man chooses is necessarily "what is right and proper to man." Morality, yes, in that men value certain things, and make choices accordingly... but they do not always value the right things, or have a proper morality; they are not necessarily Objectivists, and not necessarily correct.

While Objectivism offers the only morality proper to man, it is not the only moral system ever proposed. While I understand how it feels contradictory to speak of "immoral moralities," there it is. I've already introduced Catholicism, so imagine a Catholic writing of a volitional hero who acts according to the author's moral code. He may likely do things that an Objectivist would consider highly immoral. And yet, would we say that this was not Romantic?

Was there no Romantic art prior to Ayn Rand? (As no one had yet formulated Objectivist Ethics?) Are all heroes of Romantic art supposed to act morally (not just "according to some code," but according to Objectivism) throughout their novels, at all times?

 

The dynamiting is not a deliberate error Rand is using in this way. Rather, it is a powerful aesthetic statement about artistic integrity; Roark takes the only action possible to him that will protect the integrity of his work. The dynamiting and the fraud serve different purposes and are used in different ways in the novel, and must be analyzed differently.

 

I just want to say in Jonathan's "defense," that I believe he's said something much to your point, earlier in this thread:

 

Yes, I understand why Rand had Roark act the way he did. She did it for its aesthetic effect, and to portray aesthetic integrity. It is not a guide to moral action.

 

I believe that Jonathan is introducing the "fraudulent" nature of Roark's dealing with Keating as a countermeasure against the claim that Roark's subsequent dynamiting of Cortlandt is morally justified because Roark had an implicit contract with Keating going in. Which... I don't know how I feel about that one way or the other, and I'd probably have to do some re-reading before I could opine on it.

[ruveyn1]

Am I to assume the "ideal man"  would resort to explosives if he were double crossed?

 

ruveyn1

[Jonathan13]

The fraud and the dynamiting are two separate issues.

 

No, they're not. Roark's stated reason for dynamiting the buildings was that his contract was violated. Since he didn't actually have a contract with the project's owners (but actively hid his involvement from them), and only had a contract to commit fraud with Keating via Keating's contract with the owners, his committing fraud is a significant factor in his need to resort to intiating force. When one operates outside the law and outside of objective morality, one has no recourse to the law. One resorts to gangland "justice."

 

On the subject of the fraud, Roark realizes and admits that he was wrong to engage in it and pass off his work as Keating's.

 

He admits to the error of having propped up Keating, and to the damage that it has done to him, and that's a great first step, but he does not apologize or make amends to those whom he and Keating defrauded, and against whom he initiated force.

 

Roark begins the novel with a mistaken premise and an inadequate understanding of the consequences of helping Keating in this way.  The progression of the novel then illustrates, to Roark and to us, the consequences of this error.  In this respect, it's much like Rearden's initial flawed approach to dealing with family obligation: the events of the novel illustrate to him and to us the error in his thinking.

 

The dynamiting is not a deliberate error Rand is using in this way.  Rather, it is a powerful aesthetic statement about artistic integrity; Roark takes the only action possible to him that will protect the integrity of his work.  The dynamiting and the fraud serve different purposes and are used in different ways in the novel, and must be analyzed differently.

 

Very well said. I think that you and I are probably pretty close in how we interpret the novel. The main thing is the creative independence and the artistic integrity, and that not all of the hero's actions are to be taken as a guide to moral living. The overall sense of life is the important thing to focus on, and not the particulars. As I quoted Rand as saying, the artistic portrayal of sense of life "is concerned with a basic frame of mind, not with rules of conduct." Roark's basic frame of mind isn't that of a dynamiter or other intiator of force, but of a strongly independent and productive creator.

 

J

Edited February 15, 2013 by Jonathan13

[whYNOT]

 

I think that this is right. I think that Roark and Galt and Rearden, etc., are meant as projections of ideal men, per Rand. Does this also mean that they are morally perfect men? What would "moral perfection" mean in this context, anyways?  That they never make mistakes?  Never evade?  Never act contrary to their own best interests?

It's interesting, because it seems to me that this question strikes at the heart of many controversies which -- in my admittedly limited experience -- tend to plague the Objectivist community. Perhaps it is unsurprising that this topic is so contentious.

As I write this, I've noticed that Dante has replied in his usual excellent manner -- and with an admission of guilt from Roark, no less, which is... monumental for the topic under discussion. If I take this as an expression of moral culpability (and I see no other reasonable way to take it, though perhaps someone else will suggest one), then where does it leave us with the idea of "Roark as moral ideal"? Is he only "the moral ideal" at the very conclusion of the novel (or perhaps one sentence past), when he has learned every lesson that the novel was set to teach? Or is it allowable that Roark will make mistakes as he learns and grows? That he was "the moral ideal" all along, despite what are obviously immoral actions and, I would argue, implicit evasions?  (Though, again, I do not know whether Rand had developed her theory of "evasion" yet...)

Could it be that a "morally perfect" man will yet make moral mistakes... but he will learn, and (as here) apologize, and seek to make amends, and resolve not to repeat those mistakes that he commits...? I rather hope so, else I'm not certain that such "moral perfection" is apt to measure anything about human beings, except perhaps in a manner fit for Catholics.

In any event, Roark's culpability here (insofar as we trust him to identify his own error) I think should conclusively answer the question as to whether or not Rand's heroes -- "moral ideals" or not, and whatever we take that to mean -- may yet act immorally within her fiction. It is not enough to say that Rand's hero did X to conclude that X is a moral action, within Objectivism as developed in her later writings, or even within Rand's moral understanding at the time of writing the fiction in question.

 

 

I think if we take this formulation too strictly, however, we reach the conclusion that all Romanticism portrays Objectivism/Objectivist heroes, and that there is no Romanticism apart from that.

Volition yes, but not everything that a man chooses is necessarily "what is right and proper to man." Morality, yes, in that men value certain things, and make choices accordingly... but they do not always value the right things, or have a proper morality; they are not necessarily Objectivists, and not necessarily correct.

While Objectivism offers the only morality proper to man, it is not the only moral system ever proposed. While I understand how it feels contradictory to speak of "immoral moralities," there it is. I've already introduced Catholicism, so imagine a Catholic writing of a volitional hero who acts according to the author's moral code. He may likely do things that an Objectivist would consider highly immoral. And yet, would we say that this was not Romantic?

Was there no Romantic art prior to Ayn Rand? (As no one had yet formulated Objectivist Ethics?) Are all heroes of Romantic art supposed to act morally (not just "according to some code," but according to Objectivism) throughout their novels, at all times?

 

 

I just want to say in Jonathan's "defense," that I believe he's said something much to your point, earlier in this thread:

 

 

I believe that Jonathan is introducing the "fraudulent" nature of Roark's dealing with Keating as a countermeasure against the claim that Roark's subsequent dynamiting of Cortlandt is morally justified because Roark had an implicit contract with Keating going in. Which... I don't know how I feel about that one way or the other, and I'd probably have to do some re-reading before I could opine on it.

DonAthos, what I see recurring from Jonathan and i-ammo is a premise of:

 

if he isn't perfect, then he can't be moral.

 

Yet, Rand shows us Roark's struggles and errors, and calls him her "ideal man".

Why is that, do you think?

 

I think the above premise is moral perfectionism. Otherwise called by AR "mystical-intrinsicism".

It's the epistemological and psycho-epistemological fallacy of, and desire for, Divine (and instant) Perfection.

Its "flip-side of the same coin" is skepticism, and so it is not surprising to see that also emerge here.

[DonAthos]

DonAthos, what I see recurring from Jonathan and i-ammo is a premise of:

 

if he isn't perfect, then he can't be moral.

 

Yet, Rand shows us Roark's struggles and errors, and calls him her "ideal man".

Why is that, do you think?

 

Speaking for myself, I think it is crucial that Roark is portrayed with -- as you put it -- "struggles and errors." Frankly, and however anyone else might take this with respect to my "sense of life" or whatever, I wouldn't recognize human existence without "struggles and errors." I struggle and I err and yet I do aim for the ideal, insofar as I am able to recognize it.

I think, if we want to witness the "ideal man" in action, and if this is to have any meaning for us, then we must witness him overcoming... obstacles, yes, but also faults. Thus "ideal," in this sense, must not mean "free-from-fault," but must speak to one's orientation towards those faults that he finds.

As perhaps a bit of a tangent -- though what occurs to me -- I recognized early in dating that I was not going to find a woman with whom I never disagreed/fought. Rather, I sought a woman with whom I could disagree and fight in a productive and "healthy" manner. To me, that was one of the hallmarks of a "perfect relationship."

[Jonathan13]

DonAthos, what I see recurring from Jonathan and i-ammo is a premise of:

 

if he isn't perfect, then he can't be moral.

 

That's not my premise. It has no resemblance whatsoever to my views.

 

The premise that I see in you is that Rand said that her fictional heroes were "ideal men," and therefore Howard Roark cannot have done anything immoral. And therefore we must twist ourselves into intellectual preztels and hold several different contradictory positions so as not to admit that some of Roark's actions were not moral. If someone points out that some of the hero's actions were not moral, we must accuse them of claiming that the hero "can't be moral." And we must actively deny and reject Rand's own statements, as published by her estate, from her own journals, on the subject of "noble crooks" and the general sense of life depicted in an artwork versus a few particulars of immoral actions.

 

I think the saddest thing is that those who appear to be quite emotionally involved in arguing against my position don't seem to realize that I'm defending Rand's position! It's not an attack. I really don't understand the defensiveness.

 

J

Edited February 15, 2013 by Jonathan13