Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Taking Rand's fictional characters too literally

Rate this topic


musenji

Recommended Posts

For most of us though, we're not genius artists, even if we were we might not necessary hold those matters as such high values, or we might have other values to weigh up before making a decision like that (Roark was basically aloof from everything else - no family etc).

This entirely misses the point. The reason you're saying this is the same sort of reason why some people take Roark to be a person one should emulate in behavior and values. It's like suggesting no one is perfect, therefore, none of us can expect to be as good as Roark and have as much self-esteem. The other angle of that is saying that BECAUSE Roark is perfect, you should emulate him in order to be as good as him. Rand's characters aren't really "theoretical extremes", her characters support points because they ARE realistic. You may think "extreme" only because there are so few people like Roark; he's an individual, that's why he appears to be extreme. Not because he has crazy beliefs, but because he acts in his full self-interest in order to promote his unique values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That Roark has unique values was my point. His unique values of course stem form his identity: genius architect. Most people are not in an equivalent position.

I'm pretty sure I got the point of the novel. Roark's actions are logical however his identity and circumstances are unusual, which is what makes him an 'extreme' case. Fiction pushes things to extremes to make more clearly defined points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No other philosopher as far as I know uses fiction to delineate "official" philosophy.

Don't forget about "Republic" by Plato as well as the numerous Existential fictions: "The Stranger" by Camus; "No Exit" by Sartre.

To that point, "Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments." -Ayn Rand, "Art and Cognition", The Romantic Manifesto, p. 45. So really any art represents a philosophy, implicit or explicit.

Sorry for the tangent.

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...