Myself

You have indeed answered your own question as there are many ways of being fit. Accepting reality, choosing to live for yourself, and exercising your consciousness to its limits have indeed put you in the ranks of a fit mind. I think that everyone, once discovering and integrating Ayn Rand's work develops a proselatising stance. I always find it a shame when an obviously rational and logical person is unable to take the next step. In that case the best approach, I've found, is to simply offer to lend them a copy of The Fountainhead. If they respond favorably then they will need no further promptings. IF not well...you may have been mistaken about the logical and rational part. Remember that it is not your responsibility to educate every misinformed person. Some people refuse to listen to logic or simply aren't ready at their point in life to shed the preconceptions imposed on them early on. Living for yourself and not being overly concerned with "converting" the "masses" is the best way to promote Objectivism. I am sorry to hear of your disability, but remember to remain optimistic about the future. In a letter to a fan Isaac Asimov expressed this perfectly: "You know everyone has a handicap of some sort or other. Some people lack will or are ridden by fear or aren't very bright. Those are really bad handicaps because they are almost impossible to overcome. If, on the other hand, one has will and courage and, most of all, has a brain, other handicaps can be overcome. Best wishes on your overcoming."

This was particularly funny simply because anyone who has read her novels or knows anything factual about her would find these statements ludicrous. Saying that the Fountainhead promoted religion and that her "confessions" were placed under the seal of the Vatican is so ridiculous, that it’s rip-roaringly funny. By an Objectivist laughing at this joke he is not mocking Ayn Rand - he is mocking the ridiculous claims made by the author!! If this was passed off as factual information than it would be slander, but as it’s written as a joke, the author reinforces Rand's philosophy through direct contradiction. The only way this could be harmful is if the reader had no knowledge of Ayn Rand and also didn't perceive this was a joke (a pretty dimwitted reader). To further enhance the humor it was claimed to have been written by John Galt. This should have been posted under the section of "Objectivist Jokes".

Continuing this aspect of the discussion is horribly veering off topic, but obsession might have accurately described Dagny's state. If you recall after the passing of Directive 10-289 Dagny hightailed it to her retreat in the woods. There she existed miserably and through sheer force of will. It was something uncontrollable and if she had managed or had been forced to stay away from TT for too long she could have quite possibly had a breakdown. Another way to illustrate this, perhaps more clearly was her refusal to stay in Galt's Gulch where she was contemplating that she couldn't envision herself running one small line when she could have been running an entire railroad. Clearly she was obsessed with Taggart Transcontinental, something that had been twisted and crippled, rather than solely on work ethic or her position. I understand she felt that she didn't want to surrender to the looters, but I believe that the only justification for this was just outrage and determination, even as Francisco and Galt tried to talk her out of it. Are you saying that the only thing that is essential in a character is their values? A character's actions certainly weigh just as heavily, for they are the manifestation, or lack of manifestation of the aforementioned ideals. The concrete and the abstract ideals form a whole picture, not an isolated an fractured one, by divorcing ethics from reality. Doing so certainly doesn't demean them.

Please explain with unequivocal terms how this works. Ayn Rand did not believe anything without proof of its existence and its foundation in objective reality. Feelings of course, without their rational basis are subjective and should not be a reason to believe anything. Did you read somewhere that she believed in "love on first sight" per se? If so please reference the source and page numbers as this is something I am extreemely surprised at. Is love based on "features of [a] face, posture and carriage, intonation...and look in the eyes?" Give me a break! This is physical attraction and I have no idea how this can translate through these attributes alone the essence of a person. "Because he could always read her mind"?! How does he do that?! Unless you want to except pseudosciences, eugenics, and levitation along with ESP that is impossible. I interpreted their actions as a unique understanding they possessed due to the common values, sense of life and similarity in thought processes. If this is what you mean by "mind reading" is certainly not the term to use. That is a statement which you have not personally backed up, or cited whose opinion you agreed with on the subject. Alone it is not supported by any of your statements unless I take it to mean that "love at first sight" is a justification of in itself, requiring no basis in objective reality.

I should be more explicit. I have in a sense misused the word "wordless" where what I meant was meaning that far outweighed the words used to communicate. You have charged me for the second time now Burgess for assaulting Ayn Rand - this is not my intention! I have nothing but respect for Ayn Rand and her characters as I have said in my second post on this thread. Also the context of "wordless: can be traced to Dominique's post and was used in her interpretation. As for attacking her characters - I haven't - I have been scrutinizing and analyzing their actions for what I see as inconsistent behavior. Please by all means explain in the circumstances I have referred to how they are consistent with the rest of their character. Anything Ayn Rand has written should be open to scrutiny and debate or this forum has no purpose. If I thought Roark was acting irrational in a particular moment in the premise that I have described this is not an attack. It is an invitation to prove me wrong. Would it be more acceptable if I posited everything as a question as if to give the onus of authority to the responder? Or should I base my conclusions as a statement untill proven wrong? Also as a side note "attacking" characters is not the same as attacking the author. Characters such as Toohey again do not reflect Ayn Rand and even Roark exhibits flaws - no character is perfect. A distinction must be made from scrutinizing an isolated scene and an attack on that character's character. Also you have said that I have attacked her character(s). Please reference each attack and the fact that there are more than one character that I referred to - I have been primarily discussing Roark.

Roark and Dominique do have wordless relationship for most of the novel, but this I think comes from the high compatibility, sense of life, and values they shared. In the quarry scene and the "rape" scene I don't know where Roark derived his evaluation of her character. At this point perhaps the only thing he knew about her was that she was Francon's daughter (a man he wasn't overly fond of) that she ran a petty column in a newspaper he hated (he might have known), and that she exhibited interest in him by her staring. How did he know what sort of a person she was? At this stage in their relationship a wordless existence shouldn't be possible or rational. There was no indication that she was what could be considered "Objectvist" by his previous knowledge. Therefore his actions were based on more impressions and assumptions than knowledge. In Mallory's case it was more intimate and revealing to see his work, the prime function of his consciousness than to have explicitly asked him "Is it okay that I smash this betryal and symbol of suffering to everything your work exhibits? On a side note now that I am writing this: what was Dominique's focus in life? She didn't really have a career (Her column was a joke even to herself) and remarked to Alvah (sorry no direct quote) that it was basically staving off boredom. Much of her life in the book was spent being married and doing nothing, in the end marrying Roark and (presumably) doing nothing. What a change from Dagny Taggart another of Rand's female protagonist's who was obssessed by working. To summarize the original intent of my post: Because Roark had no concrete knowledge of Dominique's character their "wordless behavior" in the beginning should be different than their behavior later on. Also in your post you mentioned (quote above) that Roark having a high self-esteem would allow him to make judgements on less info. Can you make a judgement on info that doesn't exist? Also while having low self esteem does cloud judgement it doesn't change the amount of data available. Having high self esteem removes the cloud but again, both people work from the same amount of info regardless. Also can you explain how a person can draw conclusions on small amounts of data without assuming cetain premises. When is there enough data?

As Dominique has pointed out that passage has not bolstered your argument, though for a different reason than she pointed out. To refer back to your quote Roark knew that Mallory wouldn't retaliate because he had seen previous examples of his real work had conversed with him up to that scene realizing what an atrocity that piece was. In my earlier post I had commented on acting by assumptions and inferences, not knowledge. Roark possessed knowledge in this case of Mallory's character. Now to address the original topic of the rape "charges", Roark acted - but this time not based on knowledge. He drew conclusions from hints and subtle actions that that was what Dominique wanted. The evidence that he used to draw those conclusions are shaky, but as it turned out he was right. As RationalCop pointed out though, sometimes it is necessary to act on limited data. Your argument if I am interpreting you correctly is that you don't need explicit permission to take questionable actions if you "know" those actions would be sanctioned? Where is your knowledge coming from? Is your "knowledge" based on inferences or is it based on objective reality and conclusions drawn from that knowledge? This is the difference between the "rape" scene and Mallory's scene - one was based on wordless assumptions and the other was based on knowledge of the person's character and work. The analogy doesn't hold.

I am sorry if my post was interpreted as an attack on either Roark or Rand. This was not my intention. The question I would like to posit is how Roark's actions can be integrated into Objectivist philosophy. To my understanding you should never take action on unsubtantiated premises. What if Roark was wrong? Subtlety has its purposes but by its very nature does not openly state its intentions. Rather, it leaves the interpretation up to another. What if an Objectivist thought he percieved a subtle "hint", took action on what he percieved as a "wordless agreement" and then found out there wasn't any? It is clear that an assumption unsubstantiated is subjectivist fancy. My question can be summarized: where does wordless assumption turn into a basis for action, and how can Roark's action be integrated in Objectivism in this specific instance. Again I am sorry if my post was percieved as an attack as I have nothing but respect for both Roark the charcater and Rand herself.

The fact that Roark percieved Dominique's attraction for him and his subsequent actions can be endlessly debated as this is a fictional work, and of course Rand's interpretation of her own novel holds higher credance. What can be debated is the nebulous interpretations another person could draw from Roark's actions, Rand's ideal man. If every man thought a woman was attracted to him and proceeded to "initiate" romance with her, every convicted rapist could claim to have been morally justified by claiming she practically "invited" it. Being based on wordless assumptions and half subtle signals Roark presumed much by his brash actions which seems more like subjectivist delusions with wavering edges than a rational response.

I would like to Introduce myself to this forum and state that this is my first time in correspondence with fellow Objectivists. I first read Ayn's work at a time when I was truly breaking away from my religious upbringing after suffering for a long time in parochial school. I have read, reread, and read again, Ayn's novels, The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, and We the Living. I have also perused the Romantic Manifesto and the Virtue of Selfishness. I state this simply to show the reader of this posting that I am thoroughly acquainted with her works. However after visiting the ARI's site for a short amount of time I was surprised to see such a venomous hatred of serious environmental undertakings. Science is the highest manifestation of Ayn's ideas, and Environmental research is based on good science. Polluting the air and our natural resources will hurt us in the long run, as poisoning ourselves is the eventual outcome. Preventing this, does not restrict industry (I would never want it so) but is the intelligent rational undertaking for the furture of a healthy mankind. It is my selfish interest to see researchers find new medical cures, but as the rainforest is being cleared previously unknown flora and fauna may hold the answers to unlocking the cures to diseases such as cancer and Parkinsons disease. I do not wish to be yelled at for my views. I would like an intelligent rational conversation on this matter. I will be happy to expound further on my idea of a selfish environmentalism.