Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Howard Roark's Motivation

Rate this topic


Dufresne

Recommended Posts

There is a scene in The Fountainhead in which Peter Keating asks Roark to design Cortlandt Homes. Roark wants Keating to name a reason for designing it. He makes it clear that he does not want to design Cortlandt Homes for money, fame, charity or altruism.

What exactly does he want to design it for? Is it because he holds reason, purpose and self-esteem as values and wants to achieve these values by means of creating buildings? Does he want to stand in front of the finished building and think: "What a great person I am having designed this marvelous piece of architecture!"?

And how does he judge the value of his creations? Is the question of whether his buildings objectively meet his client's requirements relevant? I know that he in fact builds using his client's requirements. But should that be relevant to an egoist in this particular situation given the facts that he does not do it for the money and that he will not personally live or work in Cortlandt Homes or otherwise practically use the building? If he personally wanted to use the building in any way or if he only got paid if his buildings met his client's requirements then of course he should take the client's requirements into account but why here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a scene in The Fountainhead in which Peter Keating asks Roark to design Cortlandt Homes. Roark wants Keating to name a reason for designing it. He makes it clear that he does not want to design Cortlandt Homes for money, fame, charity or altruism.

What exactly does he want to design it for? Is it because he holds reason, purpose and self-esteem as values and wants to achieve these values by means of creating buildings? Does he want to stand in front of the finished building and think: "What a great person I am having designed this marvelous piece of architecture!"?

He takes on the project because Roark loves his work and Cortlandt Homes is unlike anything else he's been asked to design. It is an intellectual challenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How could a building be great if it did not serve its purpose?

That's a question I am asking myself. Cortlandt Homes is a value to the future inhabitants because they will live in it. But what is the standard of greatness, of value? Is it man's life qua man? I always thought that this standard meant man's own life qua man, not man's life qua man in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly does he want to design it for? Is it because he holds reason, purpose and self-esteem as values and wants to achieve these values by means of creating buildings?

There is a scene in the book when Keating and Roark talk about this issue. Roark basically says that Keating can have everything that other men can give him as far as Cortlandt is concerned - i.e. money, fame, admiration, etc (things that Roark does NOT hold as values), and he will get the one thing that only he can give himself - the knowledge that HE built Cortlandt (according to the criteria that such a building ought to have). And that is how Roark derives value from his profession.

Edited by Concerto of Atlantis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a scene in the book when Keating and Roark talk about this issue. Roark basically says that Keating can have everything that other men can give him as far as Cortlandt is concerned - i.e. money, fame, admiration, etc (things that Roark does NOT hold as values), and he will get the one thing that only he can give himself - the knowledge that HE built Cortlandt (according to the criteria that such a building ought to have). And that is how Roark derives value from his profession.

Yes, but why should the architect care about the criteria "such a building ought to have"? Did Rand think that it is good to create values that are good according to the standard of man's life - any man's life - qua man, even if the creator does not have a practical use for the values he creates? I'm aware that the creator might consider his creations as values because they are a means to his own values (e.g. reason, purpose, self-esteem, money, etc.). But should a creator also consider his creations valuable because they serve human life in general?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but why should the architect care about the criteria "such a building ought to have"? Did Rand think that it is good to create values that are good according to the standard of man's life - any man's life - qua man, even if the creator does not have a practical use for the values he creates? I'm aware that the creator might consider his creations as values because they are a means to his own values (e.g. reason, purpose, self-esteem, money, etc.). But should a creator also consider his creations valuable because they serve human life in general?

The practical use that Roark had was his own happiness. He mentioned that a low-income apartment was a project that he had been working on his own for several years. Designing Cortlandt Homes gave Roark the opportunity to see his ideas put into reality. Seeing the apartments built would have made him happy knowing that they were his ideas from his mind. The fact that other people would enjoy living in the apartments was just a secondary benefit to Roark. Other people's happiness was not one of his primary concerns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but why should the architect care about the criteria "such a building ought to have"?

Anything that is built or created or designed has a set of objective criteria that has to be fulfilled. For instance, a performance car should have good acceleration, good brakes and handle well, because that is by objective definition what a performance car ought to be. So in a great performance car - let's say an F1 car - everything is there to make the car go faster, brake better and handle better.

Similarly, a low-cost housing project has its criteria also. And when Howard Roark designed Cortlandt, his primary motivation was to make a great building that served the purpose it ought to serve. In other words, a building that existed according to the facts of reality. He wanted to build the best building that he could possibly build. As Bryan pointed out, he would have been aware that the building's inhabitants would have gained satisfaction from living in his building, but that was a secondary consequence of him building the best low-cost building he could build.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How could a building be great if it did not serve its purpose?

That's a question I am asking myself. Cortlandt Homes is a value to the future inhabitants because they will live in it. But what is the standard of greatness, of value? Is it man's life qua man? I always thought that this standard meant man's own life qua man, not man's life qua man in general.

Dufresne,

From your profile I see that you're a software architect. Do you enjoy what you do? Do you feel lucky to be paid for doing what you love? If someone comes to you with a software design problem that many have tried unsuccessfully to solve, would you enjoy solving it even if you would not be paid. [i'm not asking if you would do it. Rather, if you were to assume (for a minute) that you agreed to take on the challenge without being paid, would you enjoy it?]

Roark loved his work and loved a challenge liked Cortland. Sure, one can think about such issues in the abstract, but actually making the creation concrete is a different experience. It is to die for.... as for money: well, for this once I'll say, "its only money" :) .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From your profile I see that you're a software architect. Do you enjoy what you do? Do you feel lucky to be paid for doing what you love? If someone comes to you with a software design problem that many have tried unsuccessfully to solve, would you enjoy solving it even if you would not be paid. [i'm not asking if you would do it. Rather, if you were to assume (for a minute) that you agreed to take on the challenge without being paid, would you enjoy it?]

The answer to your questions is a resounding "No, I wish!". There was a time when I did enjoy my work, now I am "only" working for the money. That's why I am trying to understand some of the characters in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

There is a scene in AS in which Dr. Potter, an employee of the State Science Institute, wants Rearden to sell his rights to Rearden Metal. Rearden refuses because he thinks Rearden Metal is good. The same could be said about Howard Roark. He considers his buildings good. But good by what standard? By the standard of man's life qua man? Surely, if Roark or Rearden want to sell their products they have to take their client's requirements into account. I do not deny that it in their selfish interest to create products that benefit their customer's lives. But I wonder whether there is something more to it. Would they equally love their work if their customers payed them for inferior quality products? It could still be an intellectual challenge to create such products (reason), they would still have something to do (purpose) and they would still be able to experience their own efficacy (self-esteem).

Why not cut corners to make more money? Do these characters have some wish to "improve the world" or to "improve the lives of their customers"? Why should I care to make this world any better when I don't particularly like most people around me? Why should I care to improve people's lives when all I get from politics is a violation of my rights, when all I get from most businessmen is moral cowardice and when all I get from people around me is accusations of being too selfish?

I must add that I don't act like that but that's what I think sometimes when I'm in a bad mood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer to your questions is a resounding "No, I wish!". There was a time when I did enjoy my work, now I am "only" working for the money. That's why I am trying to understand some of the characters in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

There is a scene in AS in which Dr. Potter, an employee of the State Science Institute, wants Rearden to sell his rights to Rearden Metal. Rearden refuses because he thinks Rearden Metal is good. The same could be said about Howard Roark. He considers his buildings good. But good by what standard? By the standard of man's life qua man?

By the standard of their own judgment. A standard that they hold in higher regard than any other.

Surely, if Roark or Rearden want to sell their products they have to take their client's requirements into account. I do not deny that it in their selfish interest to create products that benefit their customer's lives. But I wonder whether there is something more to it. Would they equally love their work if their customers payed them for inferior quality products?
No.

It could still be an intellectual challenge to create such products (reason), they would still have something to do (purpose) and they would still be able to experience their own efficacy (self-esteem).

Its not that intellectually challenging to do inferior work. What self-esteem do you really derive from doing a half-assed job? Whenever I do something half-assed, even if I get praise for the job I do, it doesn't give me any pride at all because I know that I am capable of more.

Why not cut corners to make more money? Do these characters have some wish to "improve the world" or to "improve the lives of their customers"? Why should I care to make this world any better when I don't particularly like most people around me? Why should I care to improve people's lives when all I get from politics is a violation of my rights, when all I get from most businessmen is moral cowardice and when all I get from people around me is accusations of being too selfish?

I don't have any desire to make the world a better place simply for the sake of making the world a better place. If I attempt to live the way Roark and Rearden do in their respective worlds, the world would be a better place for everyone else (even if it's only a miniscule amount) and the world would be much better for me, which is my primary concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer to your questions is a resounding "No, I wish!". There was a time when I did enjoy my work, now I am "only" working for the money.

Would you prefer to do work that you enjoy?

If yes.... the enjoyment of work is a value, just like the things you get from money.

If no.... is it because you think it is not possible to enjoy any type of work? Or, do you think you would not be able to get enough money doing work you enjoy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not that intellectually challenging to do inferior work.  What self-esteem do you really derive from doing a half-assed job?

None.

If I attempt to live the way Roark and Rearden do in their respective worlds, the world would be a better place for everyone else (even if it's only a miniscule amount) and the world would be much better for me, which is my primary concern.

Would you create a product or offer a service that meets your customer's requirements if those requirements themselves are not in the customer's objective interests? For example, would you, as the owner of a pharmaceutical company, produce and sell heroin if it were legal? You know that heroin consumption is in nobody's objective interest but your aim is to make the best heroin possible at the lowest price for as much profit as possible. Would you do that? Why? Why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you create a product or offer a service that meets your customer's requirements if those requirements themselves are not in the customer's objective interests? For example, would you, as the owner of a pharmaceutical company, produce and sell heroin if it were legal? ....

Wow Dufresne, Sounds like you need to change employers!

In the context of Howard Roark, though, this was not an issue. The goal -- low cost housing -- was an objective one. One can complain about govt. financing etc., but solely as an exercise for an architect, building low-cost housing was a cool task.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you create a product or offer a service that meets your customer's requirements if those requirements themselves are not in the customer's objective interests? For example, would you, as the owner of a pharmaceutical company, produce and sell heroin if it were legal? You know that heroin consumption is in nobody's objective interest but your aim is to make the best heroin possible at the lowest price for as much profit as possible. Would you do that? Why? Why not?

A product could not both meet a customer's requirements and not be in the customer's objective interests unless the either the customer's requirements or interests are flawed. I would not work to produce any product that fit this category. I would derive no satisfaction at all producing a product that was destructive to the people who purchased it.

I'm not sure how this question follows from the discussion of Roark and Cortlandt Homes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roark is an egoist - that is the key thing to understand.

Me, me, me. My work, my standards, my life, my buildings, my blueprints.

This is an egoist in the Randian sense, not the monster that society presents. For example the egoist as presented by society would kill someone for $5, but a Randian egoist would not because he is such an egoist it is only acceptable to live off his own work.

Anyway this is what I think drives him, this me me me, this desire to be himself in every way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a scene in The Fountainhead in which Peter Keating asks Roark to design Cortlandt Homes. Roark wants Keating to name a reason for designing it. He makes it clear that he does not want to design Cortlandt Homes for money, fame, charity or altruism.

What exactly does he want to design it for?

...the knowledge that HE built Cortlandt (according to the criteria that such a building ought to have).

Exactly.

Another side issue that has not explored yet on this thread: Ayn Rand created this specific part of the story as a plot device to show what would happen if Roark "tried in a way to compromise" in a situation involving a corruption of values (i.e. Toohey's influence, the other architects being involved, knowing Keating has had a lifetime of chances to act virtuously & has not).

I have experienced situations I imagine might be somewhat similar. People have come to me with a musical composition & asked my thoughts on how well it is constructed. I look at the piece & see where it is flawed or "less than it could be" (better note choices, phrasing, voice leading, clarification & integration of themes, ec.). My immediate reaction is one of "This piece would be much better if it did THIS instead...". It can be difficult to decide what to do, how much to do depending upon the character of the person, the context of the situation, what I will actually gain by fixing it among other things.

BUT often, that first overpowering, almost visceral response is, "Geez, that is screwed up & I can make it better!"

There are scenes showing Roark saying/thinking essentially, "I can't resist wanting to make it better. I see the flaws & how they could be rectified." I remember at one point he actually says something to effect that he, "can't resist" or "can't pass a flawed building without immediately thinking it could be made better in the same way that others might not be able to pass another person that needs help". Except in Roark's case instead of people it's buildings. Which, I think is Ayn Rand showing how Roark's epistemology is "primacy of existence" instead of the "primacy of consciousness".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...