Roark the dynamiter

[whYNOT]

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."

But don't you see, the small doubts you express - are right!

No man can ever be perfect (or his wife) but what makes Roark Rand's "ideal" is the choices he takes day after day

to *pursue* perfection, making mistakes but "self-directing" and correcting them. And - totally by his own 'end-in-itself' spirit.

 

Otherwise, she'd have written about Jesus...who had no other destiny but to be "Perfect"(purportedly).

[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.

 

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.

 

 

Tony's comment above made me go back and read my first post on this thread (post # 3). In it, I had said:

 

"My view is that the novel is about the hero's artistic integrity, not his ethical lapses. He fits Rand's concept of bad boy heroes illustrating rebelliousness and independence: the idea isn't to focus on any aspects of their behavior that are immoral, but to focus on the sense of life that they portray, regardless of the unethical particulars. Rand's view was that the actions of a 'noble crook' in a work of literature are not to be taken literally and as an endorsement of his vices."

 

Now, how could anyone come to the conclusion that I have the premise of moral perfectionism in my judgements of The Fountainhead? Are my posts somehow not being read and comprehended? Someone please help me to understand how I'm failing to communicate. I'm at a loss. I can't think of a way to be any more clear, direct and precise in my writing.

 

J

 

Edited February 15, 2013 by Jonathan13

[intellectualammo]

Whynot wrote:

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

That is not my progression at all. Nor the end result.

Edited February 15, 2013 by intellectualammo

[whYNOT]

Tony's comment above made me go back and read my first post on this thread (post # 3). In it, I had said:

"My view is that the novel is about the hero's artistic integrity, not his ethical lapses. He fits Rand's concept of bad boy heroes illustrating rebelliousness and independence: the idea isn't to focus on any aspects of their behavior that are immoral, but to focus on the sense of life that they portray, regardless of the unethical particulars. Rand's view was that the actions of a 'noble crook' in a work of literature are not to be taken literally and as an endorsement of his vices."

Now, how could anyone come to the conclusion that I have the premise of moral perfectionism in my judgements of The Fountainhead? Are my posts somehow not being read and comprehended? Someone please help me to understand how I'm failing to communicate. I'm at a loss. I can't think of a way to be any more clear, direct and precise in my writing.

J

May I try?

TF is an old style romanticist novel of individual yearning , struggle and eventual triumph. (It is my favorite of AR's novels).

I've noticed most of your objections are set in a background of individual rights But, they were not "in existence" in the context of this novel... and as Rand not only created the context; and elsewhere developed her theory of rights; AND additionally her theory of Romanticism - it would be unjust and fallacious to accuse her of self-contradiction - on any count. In this novel. If anywhere.

(A passing thought: I don't know if you have conflated Roark's "bad boy" persona, with Rand's notes on extreme bad boys, genuine outcasts - here is a possible and crucial misunderstanding.)

I believe you and i-ammo could be getting more from the book 'as end in itself'.

The attraction of Roark's story is that it is reality-relative, men-relative, timeless and universal - he's not some abstractive, "romantic hero". We see his striving and empathize with his anguish, and celebrate his 'justice in reality' - as we know in our own quests ( though with less clarity most of the time..).

.Above all, in my view, the theme is of a rationally selfish moral man who is vilified by society, first and primarily. Then, a story of an artist of integrity, close behind.

My sense is that you've lost sight of the first, in your focus on the second. The artist and his principled ideals is the perfect vehicle for this explicit story, but it is the implicit moral theme behind the story that gives it its power. As I (maybe badly) have been trying to say from the start, if one views Roark's acts as 'rights violations' - and therefore "immoral" - one's putting the rights cart before the moral horse, and missing out on the worth of that true, abiding morality , as well as senselessly picking apart a great novel.

Edited February 16, 2013 by whYNOT

[DonAthos]

As I (maybe badly) have been trying to say from the start, if one views Roark's acts as 'rights violations' - and therefore "immoral" - one's putting the rights cart before the moral horse, and missing out on the worth of that true, abiding morality , as well as senselessly picking apart a great novel.

 

It's possible we disagree here, though I do not know for certain.

I think that a person needs to be able to recognize Roark's acts as "rights violations," if they are, and "immoral," if they are. I do not account this as "senselessly picking apart a great novel," but simply what any intelligent person does with any material worth his analysis -- he analyzes it. I believe that he depends upon his intellect to come to correct conclusions, insofar as he is able, and his integrity and intellectual honesty to hold to those conclusions, unless or until reason tells him otherwise.

These conclusions do not necessarily prevent a person from holding The Fountainhead up as a "great novel," or recognizing its "true, abiding morality," or idealizing Roark in one or many ways, or adopting Objectivism.

Furthermore, and on this particular subject, it occurs to me that Objectivism itself provides certain tools of analysis -- a methodology of thought and a system of principles on subjects such as ethics and politics which directly bear upon these matters... and almost something like a moral command that a person make judgements such as he can, according to the evidence he has available, respecting no authority higher than the verdict of his own mind. I think it might be a bit of unpleasant irony if an Objectivist were to decide that he must not subject those things dearest to Objectivism or to himself to the same level of scrutiny that he otherwise demands of himself, and expects of others, on the basis of his philosophy. Such an attitude, it seems to me, bodes poorly.

If the argument is made that certain aspects of these particular "judgements" under discussion are inapplicable to novels, as such, or to The Fountainhead (or to Rand) for some particular reason, then that is fine -- but then the argument must be made (just as you are currently in the process of attempting to make it). But I would not expect any or all to know this implicitly, nor would I chide them for their efforts to make sense of matters that might otherwise (and apparently do) cause some people confusion.

In any event, I prefer this discussion to those who might not bother to question such things (or consider such questioning to be an implicit proof of their own immorality, therefore best evaded), taking Roark as a moral exemplar in every action, and proceed to go blow up some buildings on that basis. If Roark is ultimately guiltless in his actions, or if his guilt exists but does not matter for some other reason, then that is fine. I say bring on the questions so that we can answer them.

[whYNOT]

It's possible we disagree here, though I do not know for certain.

I think that a person needs to be able to recognize Roark's acts as "rights violations," if they are, and "immoral," if they are. I do not account this as "senselessly picking apart a great novel," but simply what any intelligent person does with any material worth his analysis -- he analyzes it. I believe that he depends upon his intellect to come to correct conclusions, insofar as he is able, and his integrity and intellectual honesty to hold to those conclusions, unless or until reason tells him otherwise.

These conclusions do not necessarily prevent a person from holding The Fountainhead up as a "great novel," or recognizing its "true, abiding morality," or idealizing Roark in one or many ways, or adopting Objectivism.

Furthermore, and on this particular subject, it occurs to me that Objectivism itself provides certain tools of analysis -- a methodology of thought and a system of principles on subjects such as ethics and politics which directly bear upon these matters... and almost something like a moral command that a person make judgements such as he can, according to the evidence he has available, respecting no authority higher than the verdict of his own mind. I think it might be a bit of unpleasant irony if an Objectivist were to decide that he must not subject those things dearest to Objectivism or to himself to the same level of scrutiny that he otherwise demands of himself, and expects of others, on the basis of his philosophy. Such an attitude, it seems to me, bodes poorly.

If the argument is made that certain aspects of these particular "judgements" under discussion are inapplicable to novels, as such, or to The Fountainhead (or to Rand) for some particular reason, then that is fine -- but then the argument must be made (just as you are currently in the process of attempting to make it). But I would not expect any or all to know this implicitly, nor would I chide them for their efforts to make sense of matters that might otherwise (and apparently do) cause some people confusion.

In any event, I prefer this discussion to those who might not bother to question such things (or consider such questioning to be an implicit proof of their own immorality, therefore best evaded), taking Roark as a moral exemplar in every action, and proceed to go blow up some buildings on that basis. If Roark is ultimately guiltless in his actions, or if his guilt exists but does not matter for some other reason, then that is fine. I say bring on the questions so that we can answer them.

An impartial analysis, is what you're saying in part? Well, naturally. Hey, I'm the original doubting Thomas. No stone left unturned, no holy cows. From Ayn Rand onwards, with artwork, no different.

There is a methodology of consciousness I believe by which we all consume art - I see it as taking it in at one gulp, from the start, and then at leisure deliberately looking it over again.

Put in epistemic terms, the first is inductive, the other, deductive, I think.The first is very similar to meeting a new person: you immediately see the entire human being, as end in himself - later, you begin making assessments of his 'parts' in respect of his 'whole'.

i.e. how integrated he is. While not losing sight of the fact that the whole is the sum of the parts.

 

Very broadly, I think the criticism of TF (not unfounded regarding Roark's acts) here is not only a simple shortage of imagination - and an excess of literalism -

but mainly a failure of induction: the precise methodology Objectivists bring to concept formation (without which it wouldn't be possible.) Artwork, or philosophy (or person) if one only applies deduction, one has missed the best part and so done it an injustice, and worse, one has not done justice to oneself. Here is where disillusionment and skepticism start I'm certain.

Edited February 17, 2013 by whYNOT

[Jonathan13]

Very broadly, I think the criticism of TF (not unfounded regarding Roark's acts) here is not only a simple shortage of imagination - and an excess of literalism -

but mainly a failure of induction: the precise methodology Objectivists bring to concept formation (without which it wouldn't be possible.) Artwork, or philosophy (or person) if one only applies deduction, one has missed the best part and so done it an injustice, and worse, one has not done justice to oneself. Here is where disillusionment and skepticism start I'm certain.

 

I agree with you that it is quite unfortunate if intellectualammo is missing the power of the novel due to his focusing on Roark's immoral actions. It's a phenomena that I've seen too often in Objectivist discussion forums, but usually it's applied to others' art -- not Rand's. Objectivists tend to focus on every little detail in a work of art, to the point of judging it to be bad, both morally and aesthetically, if it contains characters who are intended to be heroes yet who engage in any immoral actions. I've always winced at the condemnations because I recongnized that if the same standards and methods were applied equally to Rand's art, it too would have to be condemned. And there's no need for any of that. There's a lot of value that is being overlooked in great art because its readers and viewers aren't extending to it the same gererosity and imagination that you're asking intellectualammo to extend to Rand's.

J

[DonAthos]

An impartial analysis, is what you're saying in part?

 

Absolutely. Or, at least, an objective analysis -- I do not consider myself capable of "impartiality" when it comes to Rand's fiction or nonfiction, nor would I hope to be.

 

Well, naturally. Hey, I'm the original doubting Thomas. No stone left unturned, no holy cows. From Ayn Rand onwards, with artwork, no different.

 

I have noticed your use of the term "doubt" a couple of times, and I'd like to briefly comment on it -- though I recognize that the allusion to Thomas is benign.

I do not equate asking questions of the conclusions others have reached, or entertaining those questions, or requiring evidence to reach a particular conclusion, as being the same thing as "doubting" that conclusion.

For instance, if you were to tell me that the answer to a particular algebraic equation was 17, and I asked you to show me how you arrived at that answer (and withheld my agreement that the answer was 17 until your demonstration), I would not necessarily describe my stance as "doubting" that the answer is 17.

In engaging in this thread, which was begun primarily to address some of the conclusions I thought you were reaching in prosecuting your "side," I didn't really have an opinion on the central subject matter. It had never really occurred to me to ask whether Roark's actions were moral, per Objectivism -- or if it had occurred, I did not find it pressing enough to pursue. But as I have been drawn in through the subsequent conversation, and allowed myself to ask, I don't think I've yet come from any position that could reasonably be described as "doubtful." I believe that there is yet a position where one asks questions in honesty, simply because one is desirous of answers, and of truth more generally, and not because one is "doubting," or "challenging," or otherwise assaulting a given position.

 

There is a methodology of consciousness I believe by which we all consume art - I see it as taking it in at one gulp, from the start, and then at leisure deliberately looking it over again.

Put in epistemic terms, the first is inductive, the other, deductive, I think.

 

I agree with your description of the consumption of art, though I'm uncertain about the correlation to induction/deduction.

If I were to try to find terms that strike me as more personally apt -- at least initially, and without deeper thought -- I think I might describe one's initial contact with art to be primarily emotional. One witnesses and reacts.

And then a person will analyze his experience, and the artwork, to some greater or lesser extent, to determine its means of producing that initial reaction (in concert with the material one has brought to the art; one's experience can certainly also illuminate the self, and always comments on it at least).

I believe that this two-step process does not occur all-of-one then all-of-the-other, but it probably happens again and again and again over the course of experiencing an artwork, and certainly something so grand as a novel (let alone an expansive novel with such philosophical depth as The Fountainhead).

But yes. In general terms, I believe that we find this to be the same: one gulp, and then we chew it over. (To follow the metaphor. I almost went with "digest," but I prefer the activity suggested by "chewing" rather than the more-automated process of digestion.)

 

The first is very similar to meeting a new person: you immediately see the entire human being, as end in himself - later, you begin making assessments of his 'parts' in respect of his 'whole'.

 

Yes. You experience the beauty of a woman before you catalog those features which constitute her beauty, both in terms of the strictly physical and those aspects which stem more directly from character, like her bearing.

 

Very broadly, I think the criticism of TF (not unfounded regarding Roark's acts) here is not only a simple shortage of imagination - and an excess of literalism -

but mainly a failure of induction: the precise methodology Objectivists bring to concept formation (without which it wouldn't be possible.)

 

As I felt it necessary to remark on the use of the word "doubt," I must also stop here on the word "criticism."

It may well be that some ask about the moral nature of Roark's actions with the intention to "criticize" Roark, or Rand, or etc., or to draw some other conclusion further down the line that we would not ourselves reach (because we find it to be mistaken). Yet I do not believe it follows that to ask such questions is, itself, to engage in that criticism. In entertaining the possibility that Roark's dynamiting Cortlandt is immoral per the standards that Rand has established in her non-fiction writings, I do not consider myself to be criticizing anything, nor even if I did conclude that it was immoral. It is "critical" in the sense of (again) analysis, but again, I consider such "critical thinking" to be foundational to intelligent engagement with such material. Foundational to knowledge as such. And since we're agreed that there are to be no sacred cows, I find that The Fountainhead must be equally subject to whatever analysis I'd apply to any other given novel.

I know that you've introduced the term "literalism" before, though I'm not comfortable enough with my own understanding of that term as you mean it to comment on that directly, just as I don't feel confident in, again, relating this to "induction." But I will say that I don't think it's a "shortage of imagination," again, to ask such questions. If a person finds that 1) Roark acted immorally, but 2) that doesn't matter to X (where X is perhaps one's evaluation of The Fountainhead as a novel, or one's evaluation of Rand as a writer, or maybe one's identification as an Objectivist) for some reason... then there is a two-fold process here, where the first step remains that a person must be able to allow himself to ask whether or not Roark acted immorally.

If you say that to ask that question -- even of oneself, if not posting to a board like this -- is a "shortage of imagination" or otherwise a failure, then I can't help but conclude that this is a damper on what I'm describing as "critical thinking," and something of an invitation to evasion. It may finally be that the morality of Roark's actions here are irrelevant with respect to other considerations we consider to be more important. But that is a separate conversation, and in every event I dislike the attitude that "there are certain things we don't ask; some subjects we don't discuss."

 

Artwork, or philosophy (or person) if one only applies deduction, one has missed the best part and so done it an injustice, and worse, one has not done justice to oneself. Here is where disillusionment and skepticism start I'm certain.

 

Taking your use of "deduction" in parallel to what we'd agreed upon earlier ("gulp, then chew"), I must observe that it remains a two-step process. One gulps, then one chews.

If you're saying that because we're subjecting certain elements of The Fountainhead to critical analysis, that therefore we haven't "done ourselves justice" -- that because we're "chewing," then we're missing out on the joys of "gulping" -- then I think you've made a mistake.

To be engaged with that second step of chewing does not mean that one has missed "the best part" of gulping. Just as, if we are somehow talking about induction and deduction, to produce a deductive argument does not mean that one has necessarily ignored induction, or made some error in his inductions.

One can read The Fountainhead without giving any analytical thought to the morality of its actors, reacting on a profoundly emotional level, and then afterwards look back with a critical eye to ask questions that, perhaps, did not initially occur.  At the very least, I believe that this describes my approach.

[Jonathan13]

I know that you've introduced the term "literalism" before, though I'm not comfortable enough with my own understanding of that term as you mean it to comment on that directly, just as I don't feel confident in, again, relating this to "induction." But I will say that I don't think it's a "shortage of imagination," again, to ask such questions.

 

I'd be interested in hearing Tony elaborate on his use of the term "literalism" and his looking down his nose at others' "shortages of imagination."

 

Some examples from real life might be helpful. Would Tony say that it is an act of literalism and a shortage of imagination for a criticic to judge Vermeer's art to be folks-next-door naturalism, or to judge Rembrandt's painting of a flayed ox as being about nothing but a flayed ox? Should we approach such judgments with the same scolding attitude that Tony has brought to this discussion, or should we be much more kind, if not timid and apologetic, in pointing out that those views reflect a failure on the part of the critic rather than the part of the artists?

 

J

[whYNOT]

Absolutely. Or, at least, an objective analysis -- I do not consider myself capable of "impartiality" when it comes to Rand's fiction or nonfiction, nor would I hope to be.

 

 

I have noticed your use of the term "doubt" a couple of times, and I'd like to briefly comment on it -- though I recognize that the allusion to Thomas is benign.

I do not equate asking questions of the conclusions others have reached, or entertaining those questions, or requiring evidence to reach a particular conclusion, as being the same thing as "doubting" that conclusion.

For instance, if you were to tell me that the answer to a particular algebraic equation was 17, and I asked you to show me how you arrived at that answer (and withheld my agreement that the answer was 17 until your demonstration), I would not necessarily describe my stance as "doubting" that the answer is 17.

In engaging in this thread, which was begun primarily to address some of the conclusions I thought you were reaching in prosecuting your "side," I didn't really have an opinion on the central subject matter. It had never really occurred to me to ask whether Roark's actions were moral, per Objectivism -- or if it had occurred, I did not find it pressing enough to pursue. But as I have been drawn in through the subsequent conversation, and allowed myself to ask, I don't think I've yet come from any position that could reasonably be described as "doubtful." I believe that there is yet a position where one asks questions in honesty, simply because one is desirous of answers, and of truth more generally, and not because one is "doubting," or "challenging," or otherwise assaulting a given position.

 

 

I agree with your description of the consumption of art, though I'm uncertain about the correlation to induction/deduction.

If I were to try to find terms that strike me as more personally apt -- at least initially, and without deeper thought -- I think I might describe one's initial contact with art to be primarily emotional. One witnesses and reacts.

And then a person will analyze his experience, and the artwork, to some greater or lesser extent, to determine its means of producing that initial reaction (in concert with the material one has brought to the art; one's experience can certainly also illuminate the self, and always comments on it at least).

I believe that this two-step process does not occur all-of-one then all-of-the-other, but it probably happens again and again and again over the course of experiencing an artwork, and certainly something so grand as a novel (let alone an expansive novel with such philosophical depth as The Fountainhead).

But yes. In general terms, I believe that we find this to be the same: one gulp, and then we chew it over. (To follow the metaphor. I almost went with "digest," but I prefer the activity suggested by "chewing" rather than the more-automated process of digestion.)

 

 

Yes. You experience the beauty of a woman before you catalog those features which constitute her beauty, both in terms of the strictly physical and those aspects which stem more directly from character, like her bearing.

 

 

As I felt it necessary to remark on the use of the word "doubt," I must also stop here on the word "criticism."

It may well be that some ask about the moral nature of Roark's actions with the intention to "criticize" Roark, or Rand, or etc., or to draw some other conclusion further down the line that we would not ourselves reach (because we find it to be mistaken). Yet I do not believe it follows that to ask such questions is, itself, to engage in that criticism. In entertaining the possibility that Roark's dynamiting Cortlandt is immoral per the standards that Rand has established in her non-fiction writings, I do not consider myself to be criticizing anything, nor even if I did conclude that it was immoral. It is "critical" in the sense of (again) analysis, but again, I consider such "critical thinking" to be foundational to intelligent engagement with such material. Foundational to knowledge as such. And since we're agreed that there are to be no sacred cows, I find that The Fountainhead must be equally subject to whatever analysis I'd apply to any other given novel.

I know that you've introduced the term "literalism" before, though I'm not comfortable enough with my own understanding of that term as you mean it to comment on that directly, just as I don't feel confident in, again, relating this to "induction." But I will say that I don't think it's a "shortage of imagination," again, to ask such questions. If a person finds that 1) Roark acted immorally, but 2) that doesn't matter to X (where X is perhaps one's evaluation of The Fountainhead as a novel, or one's evaluation of Rand as a writer, or maybe one's identification as an Objectivist) for some reason... then there is a two-fold process here, where the first step remains that a person must be able to allow himself to ask whether or not Roark acted immorally.

If you say that to ask that question -- even of oneself, if not posting to a board like this -- is a "shortage of imagination" or otherwise a failure, then I can't help but conclude that this is a damper on what I'm describing as "critical thinking," and something of an invitation to evasion. It may finally be that the morality of Roark's actions here are irrelevant with respect to other considerations we consider to be more important. But that is a separate conversation, and in every event I dislike the attitude that "there are certain things we don't ask; some subjects we don't discuss."

 

 

Taking your use of "deduction" in parallel to what we'd agreed upon earlier ("gulp, then chew"), I must observe that it remains a two-step process. One gulps, then one chews.

If you're saying that because we're subjecting certain elements of The Fountainhead to critical analysis, that therefore we haven't "done ourselves justice" -- that because we're "chewing," then we're missing out on the joys of "gulping" -- then I think you've made a mistake.

To be engaged with that second step of chewing does not mean that one has missed "the best part" of gulping. Just as, if we are somehow talking about induction and deduction, to produce a deductive argument does not mean that one has necessarily ignored induction, or made some error in his inductions.

One can read The Fountainhead without giving any analytical thought to the morality of its actors, reacting on a profoundly emotional level, and then afterwards look back with a critical eye to ask questions that, perhaps, did not initially occur.  At the very least, I believe that this describes my approach.

 Criticism when applied in a nit-picking manner: let's say you think a woman is beautiful, but maybe her legs could

be a little longer; or, you think that Rand contradicted individual rights with Roark,  who should have had a contract

from the start and gone through all the right channels, called his congressman or whatever, to get his legal satisfaction.. Etc, etc.

 

Concretist analysis that can't appreciate the whole picture.

 

Doubt, as a temporary withdrawal of one's judgment and acceptance of another's theory or facts until one has fitted them - by identification and integration - into one's own concepts. Your explanation and mine are indistinguishable, really.

 

Literalism, as I have referred to as taking Roark's acts at a non-metaphysical level, and "literally" applying them outside of

context.. A refusal to treat the novel as 'end-in-itself', like one should a painting or a Roark or a real person.

Romantic realism is representational, it pertains to reality, but it isn't a text-book of what one's acts should be; it represents a morality via the characters. All art requires an artist to start with a concept, then to re-create it through her medium into a physical entity. The reader/viewer has to reverse the process, back into its original concept. Abstraction - concrete - abstraction. We read it - or should - with poetic license, to fathom the writer's intentions through the reality of her words. We grasp the 'sense of life' representationally - of the book and writer through induction. We identify with the 'actors' and experience their (our) emotions.

More or less simultaneously, we consciously look for - and deduce - the writer's (and her characters') "metaphysical value-judgments" to ascertain her (and their) principles: In Romanticism, it is broadly, as you know : that man's reason and volition is equal to existence.

 

Imagination shortage is mostly covered above - but also that it takes some empathic effort to put oneself into the world

the writer creates.

[DonAthos]

Criticism when applied in a nit-picking manner: let's say you think a woman is beautiful, but maybe her legs could

be a little longer; or, you think that Rand contradicted individual rights with Roark,  who should have had a contract

from the start and gone through all the right channels, called his congressman or whatever, to get his legal satisfaction.. Etc, etc.

 

What you are apparently counseling seems to me to be willful blindness. Imagine the beautiful woman of our scenario, and let us say that one leg is slightly shorter than the other; a birth defect. Okay. She is still beautiful, yes? After all, we are talking about "a beautiful woman." What we're talking about does not mean that a person cannot "see her beauty" for the fact of her defect. Further, a man could choose to regard her condition, not as some "defect" at all, but perhaps somehow as part of that which makes her beautiful (an argument that seems difficult to me, yet maybe it could be made in a given scenario).

But if he is to make any of these arguments, he must first be able to recognize that one of her legs is shorter than the other. It will not do to say that a man should not be able to see that this is so, due to his appraisal of her beauty overall, or for any other reason. To argue otherwise seems to me like an advocacy of outright evasion.

Furthermore, I attempted to address your use of the word "criticism" in the very post that you have troubled yourself to quote, trying to convey that the endeavor to assess whether Roark's actions are moral or immoral does not constitute a critique or a criticism in any more pejorative sense. Yet your reply seems to ignore what I've had to say on this matter entirely. Why is that?

 

Concretist analysis that can't appreciate the whole picture.

 

Why do you believe that analyzing a specific aspect of a work of art (which is what I suppose you mean by "concretist analysis") means that the same person "can't appreciate the whole picture"? Do you mean to say that you do not think a human being is capable of doing both?

 

Doubt, as a temporary withdrawal of one's judgment and acceptance of another's theory or facts until one has fitted them - by identification and integration - into one's own concepts. Your explanation and mine are indistinguishable, really.

 

If it is the case that we agree conceptually, as in the case I'd proffered (a person claims that the answer to an equation is 17, but you withhold agreement until you see the equation worked out for yourself), then I cannot agree that "doubt" is an apt description.

You wouldn't say "I doubt that the answer is 17," which implies that you have reason to think that the answer is not 17, even if you were not satisfied to the point where you could say "I believe that the answer is 17." Perhaps you might say something like, "It has been claimed that the answer is 17, but I am yet unsure." Uncertainty is not "doubt."

 

Literalism, as I have referred to as taking Roark's acts at a non-metaphysical level, and "literally" applying them outside of

context..

 

There is no attempt so far as I'm aware to judge Roark's actions "outside of context." But if you disagree, perhaps you can expand on this.

 

A refusal to treat the novel as 'end-in-itself', like one should a painting or a Roark or a real person.

 

I really do not know what you mean by this. I don't see how any of this pertains to the question as to whether a character in a novel acts morally or immorally. Am I to gather that you think there's no possible means of assessing the morality of specific actions with fictional characters... or... real people? That novels, paintings, people, etc., are somehow unified wholes, such that it is simply impossible to be able to identify particular aspects of them -- or the actions that they take -- as being either good or bad, well- or poorly executed, admirable or otherwise?

But that can't be what you mean, and I am at a loss.

 

Romantic realism is representational, it pertains to reality, but it isn't a text-book of what one's acts should be; it represents a morality via the characters. All art requires an artist to start with a concept, then to re-create it through her medium into a physical entity. The reader/viewer has to reverse the process, back into its original concept. Abstraction - concrete - abstraction. We read it - or should - with poetic license, to fathom the writer's intentions through the reality of her words. We grasp the 'sense of life' representationally - of the book and writer through induction. We identify with the 'actors' and experience their (our) emotions.

More or less simultaneously, we consciously look for - and deduce - the writer's (and her characters') "metaphysical value-judgments" to ascertain her (and their) principles: In Romanticism, it is broadly, as you know : that man's reason and volition is equal to existence.

 

Imagination shortage is mostly covered above - but also that it takes some empathic effort to put oneself into the world

the writer creates.

 

And all of this -- what do you think it means with respect to the subject at hand?

If I were to ask you, "Is Howard Roark an architect?" would you be able to answer? If I were to ask, "did he act immorally when using Keating to work on Cortlandt?" could you answer that question? (Would you be able to answer it if Roark did not, himself, state that he was wrong to do it?) Do questions like these somehow run into the problem of "imagination shortage," or otherwise run afoul of what you describe above -- the process that you think writers and readers follow? Or is there some reason that your objection applies especially to the question under consideration, regarding Roark's blowing up of Cortlandt?

Edited February 18, 2013 by DonAthos

[whYNOT]

What you are apparently counseling seems to me to be willful blindness.

 Wrong, false - everything I've said indicates the opposite, if you have the good faith to see it.

I have constantly posed points of principle - in art, specifically Romanticism - while you have been responding empirically.

btw, that 'slicing and dicing' of one's posts that you and J. have used so prolifically, is ineffectual in pursuit of truth. My efforts have been to put across a concept, primarily - not to satisfy anyone's feelings of why Roark was a nasty dynamiter - not a point by point logical argument.

Do you appreciate the "metaphysical given" that is a stand-alone, 'end-in-itself' artwork, or man?

Don't you see the massive distinction between 'rationally-moral' ...and 'perfect'?

The gap between realistic and literal?

My initial argument was in counter to i-ammo's clear intinsicism/skepticism in his narrow critique. I don't see why you've entered this debate - you have made few plain opinions, no plain moral/aesthetic arguments - only demanded a lot of questions of me.

This is sophistry, imo, an attempt to trip up an "opponent" with his own statements.

Lacking good faith, this has become boring and circular, so I'm gone.

Edited February 18, 2013 by whYNOT

[DonAthos]

Wrong, false - everything I've said indicates the opposite, if you have the good faith to see it.

 

I have "good faith" aplenty, and have displayed more in this thread than you have earned, but in the end you must actually present your case. You have not done so. Perhaps you cannot -- perhaps you lack the ability -- and maybe even for the reason that you are wrong. But it is clear that you either don't have the capacity to entertain such ideas, or the desire to do so. So don't you talk to me about engaging in "good faith," because it is you who have none, as you have now laid perfectly clear.

Even in response to this quote -- though you never trouble yourself to respond to anything I say directly -- you are wrong in both your methods and your conclusion. You take an entire post, select one out of context sentence, and respond to it as though it were my case entire. Yet this sentence forms a topic sentence for a case that I then take pains to develop. Why not argue against what I've actually presented? Unless you cannot.

Furthermore you will note that I said that your position "seems to me" to be an advocacy of blindness. I'm allowing that I could be mistaken, again giving you more than it turns out that you actually deserve, and opening the door for you to demonstrate how this isn't so. But it becomes clearer with every post you make that I'm not mistaken at all to draw this conclusion. You dislike certain answers so you ask that people not ask certain questions. You do everything possible in your arguments to take us away from those questions. You are championing evasion and being evasive in your replies.

 

I have constantly posed points of principle - in art, specifically Romanticism - while you have been responding empirically.

 

What you do -- and have constantly done -- is try to hide all of your argumentation behind a blizzard of jargon and obfuscation. Every time one term is analyzed and found to be nonsensical, you quickly introduce another to take its place. You refuse to fully develop even a single idea you set forth, or respond to questions asked of it, finding it easier to simply cut bait and rush to another equally poor tactic.

So is it now "principle vs. empiricism"? "Induction vs. deduction?" "Literalism"? "Concretist analysis?" Please drop this mindnumbing rhetoric and drum up the courage to speak your mind plainly, if you can sort out exactly what it is you have to say. It isn't that hard, if you're being honest with yourself.

 

btw, that 'slicing and dicing' of one's posts that you and J. have used so prolifically, is ineffectual in pursuit of truth.

 

Yes. Our posting style is different, I concur. I do not write in bad poetry. I write in sentences, paragraphs, and hopefully with some sense of style. I trouble myself to learn the system so that my posts are not garbled, but legible and clear. I quote your full case, and argue at length to address what points you seemingly make; I attempt to present my case at full, so that you can understand it. I belabor myself to present examples, ask questions, anything to engage your actual thought process, so that we're not simply quoting abstract aphorisms at one another, divorced from reality.

Whereas you dodge every single thing I say and act as though you either have not read, or understood, the actual conversation taking place. Your arguments are run-together and hard to decipher, with obscure (and possibly invented) phrasings dropped in and never expanded upon. You quote material, then do not respond to it.  You ignore questions posed to you and requests for examples to elucidate your meaning. Your posting style is poor, and taking advice from you on this score would be a grave mistake.

 

My efforts have been to put across a concept, primarily - not to satisfy anyone's feelings of why Roark was a nasty dynamiter - not a point by point logical argument.

 

This is not about feelings, and has not been about feelings (except perhaps for your own). But yes, we can agree that you have not presented a logical argument -- of any kind.

 

Do you appreciate the "metaphysical given" that is a stand-alone, 'end-in-itself' artwork, or man?

Don't you see the massive distinction between 'rationally-moral' ...and 'perfect'?

The gap between realistic and literal?

 

I have already attempted to address everything that you've introduced, including all of this (so far as I can tell), investing time and energy I could have spent elsewhere, though apparently my efforts to do so are not appreciated (as they should be, if you had a shred of decency about you), but derided as "slicing and dicing." Apparently the "gulping" that you advocate for novels, for paintings, for people, is also to be used with argumentation. I am to simply take your posts as a whole -- like some sort of art instillation -- and not try to assess the particulars, subject no argument or claim to critical analysis, but merely respond to your "sense of life." Is that it?

And now, this far into your post blowing me off, taking the "good faith" I've actually shown you, and throwing it right back into my face, you have the temerity to ask these questions?  As though there is not already material addressing these questions -- material that you have not followed up on?  As though we could not have been discussing actual ideas all along, if you had the courage to do so? I don't know how far down you go, but again showing "good faith," I have to imagine that this is beneath even you.

 

My initial argument was in counter to i-ammo's clear intinsicism/skepticism in his narrow critique. I don't see why you've entered this debate - you have made few plain opinions, no plain moral/aesthetic arguments - only demanded a lot of questions of me.

 

Demanded a lot of questions of you? Oh dear. I did not know you were so sensitive to having your arguments questioned. But yes, that's rather what I do when I find argument. I subject it to "a lot of questions." Perhaps you should find some other hobby, like gardening. Dirt doesn't talk back, after all; it will not do you the disservice of taking what you have to say seriously, and will happily listen on as you tell it about the dangers of "concretist analysis."

But have you really forgotten why I've "entered this debate"? It is because you were arguing that individual rights do not apply to certain people, and that they may morally be violated by a "rational egoist" in pursuit of his values. In an effort to "win" here, you were totally ready to ditch Rand's conception of egoism and reintroduce the "selfish brute" that Rand was so clear and conscious in destroying. It was such a ready and easy sacrifice of "principle," that it's led me to wonder whether you have any.

 

This is sophistry, imo, an attempt to trip up an "opponent" with his own statements.

Lacking good faith, this has become boring and circular, so I'm gone.

 

If this sorry post of yours is an example of what you have left to contribute, that is absolutely for the best.

[Eiuol]

Demanded a lot of questions of you? Oh dear. I did not know you were so sensitive to having your arguments questioned. But yes, that's rather what I do when I find argument. I subject it to "a lot of questions." Perhaps you should find some other hobby, like gardening. Dirt doesn't talk back, after all; it will not do you the disservice of taking what you have to say seriously, and will happily listen on as you tell it about the dangers of "concretist analysis."

I rather liked posts on the first page, but the posts are rather hard to follow now, and the post I'm quoting didn't even mention Roark or the Fountainhead. I thought whYNOT was just suggesting what makes Roark moral is his virtue in being rational and fixing any acknowledged mistakes. He's not a "Divinely Perfect" person, nor did Rand intend that.

[DonAthos]

I rather liked posts on the first page, but the posts are rather hard to follow now, and the post I'm quoting didn't even mention Roark or the Fountainhead.

 

Indeed. The post you're quoting was responding to the post that came previous to it, in this very thread. Did you read that post? Because in it, I think you'll find that whYNOT was not "just suggesting" anything about Roark, but that he was also assaulting the arguments over which I've labored throughout this thread, and in an unjust manner.

Do you read it differently? Shall I quote it for you? I should like very much to help you to "follow."

 

I thought whYNOT was just suggesting what makes Roark moral is his virtue in being rational and fixing any acknowledged mistakes. He's not a "Divinely Perfect" person, nor did Rand intend that.

 

No. He has said much more than this. Again, it is in the thread, but if you'd like, I can quote it for your convenience. Did you miss the discussion about whether individual rights are a limitation on moral action? Have you not followed his suggestions that a person should not critically assess particular aspects of an artwork, or of a person? Do those posts only somehow exist on my version of the board?

In any event, the primary question is not whether Roark is moral "overall" or whether he fixes acknowledged mistakes, or so on, but whether his act in dynamiting Cortlandt was a moral action. Do you have an opinion on that? And more to the point, do you have a case to make? Because actually, we have opinions aplenty already. We are drowning in unsupported opinions.

[whYNOT]

Indeed. The post you're quoting was responding to the post that came previous to it, in this very thread. Did you read that post? Because in it, I think you'll find that whYNOT was not "just suggesting" anything about Roark, but that he was also assaulting the arguments over which I've labored throughout this thread, and in an unjust manner.

Do you read it differently? Shall I quote it for you? I should like very much to help you to "follow."

 

 

No. He has said much more than this. Again, it is in the thread, but if you'd like, I can quote it for your convenience. Did you miss the discussion about whether individual rights are a limitation on moral action? Have you not followed his suggestions that a person should not critically assess particular aspects of an artwork, or of a person? Do those posts only somehow exist on my version of the board?

 

Well, what else could I have been contesting throughout, but the intrinsicist concept of "Perfect Man"?

Eiuol seems to have got that clearly.

 

(First, to back-track, I raised a concern about NIOF which I backed -off from several posts ago; recall? I admitted that NO, one shouldn't break into a house - I even called myself a devil's advocate, and dropped it. Apparently, it comes clear, you have still had an axe to grind over it, and haven't dropped it. You had no interest in my further, generalized, thoughts about art and concepts- obviously.

Too bad.)

 

OK, if nothing will deter you from your indignation over my done-and-dusted earlier comments, I'll make something of an argument.

 

In answer to you (way back somewhere) I agreed that  "Absolutely!" one knows a rationally moral man by his actions.

But, I added, how does such a man know himself?

I don't believe you paid it much attention, as you never answered.

 

To take a personal example, myself, while I don't think I've always been an exemplar of a rationally selfish morality, I have lived an active and varied life, known many places and many types of people. In that time I have "initiated force" twice.

One time putting myself between a man savaging his dog, and the other time reacting to some vicious remarks thrown at a girl I knew. (I dislike bullies.).

Did you get that? Twice, in 44 years of adulthood. Well prior to 'meeting' Objectivism and all along, I think I have conducted myself with respect for the personhood of other individuals, as I expected for myself. I claim no special virtue, that is just the way it has been.

To reiterate, I am appalled by any form of violence, and have seen it and photographed it up close.

 

A slight detour to make a point, which is I don't take IOF lightly, and I prize individual rights highly.

My argument? you'll be asking.

 

Is the purpose of the 'non-initiation of force principle' to protect the mostly rational/moral man or woman, from the force or intervention of an irrational and immoral person?

Or to protect the irrational/immoral? Effectively, both, of course.

Rights are to protect the moral from the immoral, ultimately though.

My consideration is that short of perfection, a man who lived all his life with self-respect and respect for other life, cannot be measured by the standards of individual rights.

Individual rights are presupposed by, and, I'm taking it to limits here, almost redundant to, a rational morality. The moral egoist judges for himself - way, way, before rules and codes of conduct take effect of how to treat,

or not treat other people.

So my reply to my question of "how does a moral man know", is - he knows himself.

Do I judge myself as immoral for two actions in a life time? Nope. (While not self-justifying my actions.)

 

 

Do we judge Roark as immoral for one, dramaticized, over the top act, consistent with his values.

How do you believe his creator would like us to judge him? Should his creator know best, in fact?

 

As long as one hangs on to the irrational ideal of instantaneous, "received" moral Perfection, one has no recourse but to fall back onto man-made rules; however, the adherent of the rational ideal of a selfish morality, based on one's faculty of volition, has not much need for rules, since he or she chooses their moral direction for themselves, at every instant of their lives.

 

In short, morality is not derived from rights. Individual rights defend morality, which means, the moral person.

Any who think I'm raising a conflict between the two, can counter-argue - but I believe I'm not.

Edited February 19, 2013 by whYNOT

[intellectualammo]

We are drowning in unsupported opinions.

My head is still above that water. Edited February 19, 2013 by intellectualammo

[ruveyn1]

Guys, guys (and Gals)!  The Fountainhead is a novel.  It is fiction.  The dynamiting of Cortlandt Homes was a literary artifact in order to give the character H.R.  a chance to state his thesis in public.  Taking the thing literally,  rather than  literature-ally is an error.  You are reifying a plot artifact.  It is like taking the deux ex machina of Greek tragedy as a statement of  fact.  That is wrong.

 

ruveyn1

[Jonathan13]

Guys, guys (and Gals)!  The Fountainhead is a novel.  It is fiction.  The dynamiting of Cortlandt Homes was a literary artifact in order to give the character H.R.  a chance to state his thesis in public.  Taking the thing literally,  rather than  literature-ally is an error.  You are reifying a plot artifact.  It is like taking the deux ex machina of Greek tragedy as a statement of  fact.  That is wrong.

 

ruveyn1

 

I think that Rand would be very insulted by what you said. She would judge you to be judging her art to be aesthetically bad. She would take you to be saying that the characters' actions do not realistically mesh with the plot, but transparently and awkwardly serve the purpose of delivering the author's didactic message.

 

J

[Dante]

Do I judge myself as immoral for two actions in a life time? Nope. (While not self-justifying my actions.)

 

 

Do we judge Roark as immoral for one, dramaticized, over the top act, consistent with his values.

How do you believe his creator would like us to judge him? Should his creator know best, in fact?

 

 

Is the issue here simply judging the character of a person vs. judging an action by that person?  That's an interesting topic, and certainly we wouldn't say a person has an immoral character from one isolated action alone, particularly if that action is 'out of character' for that person.  However, the point of the dynamiting is that it's a powerful expression of the characteristic artistic integrity that Roark has displayed throughout the entire novel, so I'm not sure the argument works here.

[ruveyn1]

I think that Rand would be very insulted by what you said. She would judge you to be judging her art to be aesthetically bad. She would take you to be saying that the characters' actions do not realistically mesh with the plot, but transparently and awkwardly serve the purpose of delivering the author's didactic message.

 

J

Excuse me.  The delivery of the Message was part and parcel of the plot. 

 

What good is H.R.'s heroism and integrity if it does not make an impact on the world about him.  His buildings and his beliefs are his monuments.

 

ruveyn1

[DonAthos]

Well, what else could I have been contesting throughout, but the intrinsicist concept of "Perfect Man"?

 

But we're not discussing "the intrinsicist concept of 'Perfect Man'." We're discussing the dynamiting of Cortlandt. Why can't you discuss that?

 

(First, to back-track, I raised a concern about NIOF which I backed -off from several posts ago; recall? I admitted that NO, one shouldn't break into a house - I even called myself a devil's advocate, and dropped it. Apparently, it comes clear, you have still had an axe to grind over it, and haven't dropped it. You had no interest in my further, generalized, thoughts about art and concepts- obviously.

Too bad.)

 

I indeed have an "axe to grind" over the fact that you are so willing to dump the core of both the Objectivist Ethics and Politics so that you don't have to face a simple question about the morality of a single action by a fictional character. Further there is the matter of your last post, and your incredible rudeness, and your behavior throughout this discussion, evading and dodging the entire time.

But let's note -- this is not the only bad argument you've raised over the course of the thread. You have raised several, seeking any means, good or bad, to fulfill the ends you're after. I've tried to reply to each in their turn, because I am a deeply stupid man, and pretend like it will matter to you that your positions are shown to be unreasonable -- but here we are. Again.

And also? It is not the case that you've "backed off" from your claims that the Objectivist Ethics somehow trump the Politics. How do I know that? You re-argue the "case" immediately below:

 

OK, if nothing will deter you from your indignation over my done-and-dusted earlier comments, I'll make something of an argument.

 

In answer to you (way back somewhere) I agreed that  "Absolutely!" one knows a rationally moral man by his actions.

But, I added, how does such a man know himself?

I don't believe you paid it much attention, as you never answered.

 

To take a personal example, myself, while I don't think I've always been an exemplar of a rationally selfish morality, I have lived an active and varied life, known many places and many types of people. In that time I have "initiated force" twice.

One time putting myself between a man savaging his dog, and the other time reacting to some vicious remarks thrown at a girl I knew. (I dislike bullies.).

Did you get that? Twice, in 44 years of adulthood. Well prior to 'meeting' Objectivism and all along, I think I have conducted myself with respect for the personhood of other individuals, as I expected for myself. I claim no special virtue, that is just the way it has been.

To reiterate, I am appalled by any form of violence, and have seen it and photographed it up close.

 

A slight detour to make a point, which is I don't take IOF lightly, and I prize individual rights highly.

My argument? you'll be asking.

 

Is the purpose of the 'non-initiation of force principle' to protect the mostly rational/moral man or woman, from the force or intervention of an irrational and immoral person?

Or to protect the irrational/immoral? Effectively, both, of course.

Rights are to protect the moral from the immoral, ultimately though.

My consideration is that short of perfection, a man who lived all his life with self-respect and respect for other life, cannot be measured by the standards of individual rights.

Individual rights are presupposed by, and, I'm taking it to limits here, almost redundant to, a rational morality. The moral egoist judges for himself - way, way, before rules and codes of conduct take effect of how to treat,

or not treat other people.

So my reply to my question of "how does a moral man know", is - he knows himself.

Do I judge myself as immoral for two actions in a life time? Nope. (While not self-justifying my actions.)

 

When you discuss "rules and codes of conduct," you are referring to the principles that guide a "moral egoist" so that his actions are moral. You cannot take the "moral egoist" and his actions away from the Ethics that allow for moral egoism to begin with! That's why Objectivism exists in the first place; why it is necessary! If men could simply feel their way through life, doing as they please -- as whim takes them, with no need of a "guide of conduct," then we would not need a discipline of Ethics at all. Maybe you did well for yourself before reading Rand or any of that? I'm sure most here did. But no -- if this addresses the implication I find in your argument -- you never acted so morally upright that individual rights somehow did not apply to you or the people around you.

Individual rights -- as we have discussed earlier -- are not a "standard" to measure morality. But they are a limitation on moral action. An absolute limitation. A "moral egoist" who violates another man's rights is acting immorally.

Moral action presupposes that a man is able to act according to his choices; he must first determine what to value and etc. But he cannot do this if he is being forced to act by another; the introduction of physical force by another severs the connection between his mind/values/ethics and his actions. Physical force eliminates moral action as such. And in initiating physical force, a person is attacking that. The role that the mind plays in human survival and happiness. An individual's ability to choose his values and act to achieve them. In doing so, he is invalidating his own claim to act unmolested and inviting reciprocity.

Earlier you spoke offhandedly about your willingness to initiate physical force if somebody insulted your wife. But really? In the real world, that could quickly spiral into situations that might be fairly awful for you and for your wife. It is not recommended.

 

Do we judge Roark as immoral for one, dramaticized, over the top act, consistent with his values.

 

That's not what we're talking about either. We're not talking about a judgement of Roark overall as "moral" or "immoral," but we're looking at one of his actions.

 

How do you believe his creator would like us to judge him? Should his creator know best, in fact?

 

It is utterly immaterial how "his creator would like us to judge him." We do not take orders on how to judge people, artwork, or anything; we use our own minds. It is embarrassing to suggest otherwise.

 

As long as one hangs on to the irrational ideal of instantaneous, "received" moral Perfection, one has no recourse but to fall back onto man-made rules;

 

It gets better and better.

"Man-made rules"? This, in reference to the principle of the non-initiation of force? The Objectivist Ethics? The Politics? "Objectivity" comes down in a single blow.

 

however, the adherent of the rational ideal of a selfish morality, based on one's faculty of volition, has not much need for rules, since he or she chooses their moral direction for themselves, at every instant of their lives.

 

Yes, yes, you're right. The "adherent of the rational ideal of a selfish morality" (though we should come up with something... punchier. How about "Ubermensch"?) has no need for such codes, rules, etc. He simply wills his morality into being with his every act. Let the small men come up with rules to try to rein us in, but we shall do as we choose.

 

In short, morality is not derived from rights. Individual rights defend morality, which means, the moral person.

Any who think I'm raising a conflict between the two, can counter-argue - but I believe I'm not.

 

Er, no. Individual rights defend everybody, including those who act immorally. They only fail to defend those who violate them; the man who initiates the use of physical force (whether he is otherwise "moral" or not).

But out of curiosity... are you still "playing the devil's advocate" here? Is this the argument you've backed down upon? The "done-and-dusted" one? Let me know when we get to your sincerely-and-passionately held beliefs.

 

Guys, guys (and Gals)!  The Fountainhead is a novel.  It is fiction.

 

Agreed!

 

The dynamiting of Cortlandt Homes was a literary artifact in order to give the character H.R.  a chance to state his thesis in public.

 

Possibly!

 

Taking the thing literally,  rather than  literature-ally is an error.  You are reifying a plot artifact.  It is like taking the deux ex machina of Greek tragedy as a statement of  fact.  That is wrong.

 

Not "reifying" anything. But we must recognize the events in a work of fiction as being what they are. Roark is an architect. That's not a "statement of fact" in the sense that Roark is not a real human being, let alone a real architect. But within the context of the novel? Howard Roark is an architect. It is on that level that we assess the morality of his actions, just as we recognize Toohey as a villain through his immoral actions, or etc.

[whYNOT]

But we're not discussing "the intrinsicist concept of 'Perfect Man'." We're discussing the dynamiting of Cortlandt. Why can't you discuss that?

 

 

I indeed have an "axe to grind" over the fact that you are so willing to dump the core of both the Objectivist Ethics and Politics so that you

 

 

When you discuss "rules and codes of conduct," you are referring to the principles that guide a "moral egoist" so that his actions are moral. You cannot take the "moral egoist" and his actions away from the Ethics that allow for moral egoism to begin with! That's why Objectivism exists in the first place; why it is necessary! If men could simply feel their way through life, doing as they please -- as whim takes them, with no need of a "guide of conduct," then we would not need a discipline of Ethics at all. Maybe you did well for yourself before reading Rand or any of that? I'm sure most here did. But no -- if this addresses the implication I find in your argument -- you never acted so morally upright that individual rights somehow did not apply to you or the people around you.

Individual rights -- as we have discussed earlier -- are not a "standard" to measure morality. But they are a limitation on moral action. An absolute limitation. A "moral egoist" who violates another man's rights is acting immorally.

Moral action presupposes that a man is able to act according to his choices; he must first determine what to value and etc. But he cannot do this if he is being forced to act by another; the introduction of physical force by another severs the connection between his mind/values/ethics and his actions. Physical force eliminates moral action as such. And in initiating physical force, a person is attacking that. The role that the mind plays in human survival and happiness. An individual's ability to choose his values and act to achieve them. In doing so, he is invalidating his own claim to act unmolested and inviting reciprocity.

 

I don't think it has struck you that I elevate individual rights all the higher in my esteem, simply because I appreciate and understand rational egoism? That I respect rights by not treating them as a floating abstraction?

Your above statement takes up rightly with the protection of a rationally moral person - but implies he is in turn a threat to others around him, if not for individual rights.. Huh? Tacitly, you seem to say that individual rights are all that prevent YOU from interfering with other people.

Sincerely, I cannot believe that. A society which has such rights, as the only thing that keeps it from each others' throats,

is not a rational society. A rational egoist, by definition, doesn't need to be told what he can, or cannot do to others.

The ethics already contain his moral code, implicitly and explicitly.

 

 

""Rights" are a moral concept - the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual's

actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others - the concept that preserves and protects individual morality

in a social context - the link...between ethics and politics." [Man's Rights VoS]

[Note: "a moral concept" - not "a morality".]

 

"transition" - "link" - "preserves... individual morality". The vital connection from one to the other.

You write about me being "willing to dump the core of both the Objectivist Ethics and Politics..."

Your attack, as with ubermensch, is utterly ludicrous. But the main problem is your misinterpretation: the core

of Objectivist Politics IS the ethics, and last I looked the ethics aren't called individual rights.

 

(And I suggest you tone it down, or there'll be no one left to rant at.)

[DonAthos]

You forgot to respond to this part:

 

We're discussing the dynamiting of Cortlandt. Why can't you discuss that?

 

What do I need to say/do to get you on topic? I sincerely want to know.

 

Your above statement takes up rightly with the protection of a rationally moral person - but implies he is in turn a threat to others around him, if not for individual rights.. Huh? Tacitly, you seem to say that individual rights are all that prevent YOU from interfering with other people.

 

We're not talking about laws, but a theory of rights as part of a philosophy (such a philosophy as an individual might hold), though I don't know whether you appreciate that distinction. But yes. Respect for individual rights -- for the right of every man to act according to his values, so long as he does not initiate force -- is very much what prevents a "rationally moral person" from interfering with other people. If not for that respect, who knows what such a man might do "in pursuit of his values"? He might get into fights with others for insulting his wife, or blow up buildings, or etc. To avoid doing dumb shit like that, a man must have principles.

Here, specifically, the principle of the non-initiation of force. But why that? What's so important about physical force that it needs to be eliminated from society...? I thought I wrote about that somewhere... but then you referred to my understanding of rights as being a "floating abstraction," so lemme check...

Oh, right.

 

Moral action presupposes that a man is able to act according to his choices; he must first determine what to value and etc. But he cannot do this if he is being forced to act by another; the introduction of physical force by another severs the connection between his mind/values/ethics and his actions. Physical force eliminates moral action as such. And in initiating physical force, a person is attacking that. The role that the mind plays in human survival and happiness. An individual's ability to choose his values and act to achieve them. In doing so, he is invalidating his own claim to act unmolested and inviting reciprocity.

 

I suppose I should forgive you for missing that? I found it way back in the post that you were responding to, and quoted.

Unless you think I'm wrong here, or unless you really did miss it... somehow... is it possible that your use of "floating abstraction" is... a floating abstraction?

 

Sincerely, I cannot believe that. A society which has such rights, as the only thing that keeps it from each others' throats,
is not a rational society.

 

This is very confused. All "societies" have the rights under discussion, though not every law or government respects those rights, or protects them. All individuals have the rights under discussion. But what we're talking about is whether a man must observe this principle in order to act morally. And yes, he must. And yes, it is observing principles such as these that keeps people from each others' throats... not the simple fact that they never, I don't know, get violent urges. But that they have principles that they observe, and which guide their actions.

 

A rational egoist, by definition, doesn't need to be told what he can, or cannot do to others.
The ethics already contain his moral code, implicitly and explicitly.
 
 
""Rights" are a moral concept - the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual's
actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others - the concept that preserves and protects individual morality
in a social context - the link...between ethics and politics." [Man's Rights VoS]
[Note: "a moral concept" - not "a morality".]

 

It kills me! It really does! Despite everything, I really want you to understand -- and I just can't see why you don't.

Look. When you say that a "rational egoist...doesn't need to be told what he can, or cannot do to others," you are absolutely wrong. In fact, when you quote Rand? You're quoting her stating what a rational egoist can or cannot do to others! She is stating "principles guiding [a rational egoist's] relationship with others"!

So yes, the Objectivist Ethics do explicitly state -- as a part of its "moral code" -- that "rights" must be observed, to "preserve and protect individual morality." That is the foundation of the Objectivist Politics. You say that the rational egoist doesn't need to be told what to do... and then quote Rand telling the rational egoist what he must do!

 

(And I suggest you tone it down, or there'll be no one left to rant at.)

 

Do you mean that you'll stop posting? Didn't you already write your grand farewell? I swear I remember that happening!

But really, you lost the privilege to chide me over tone when you responded to my sincere and painstaking efforts to discuss these ideas by castigating my posting methods ("slicing and dicing"; "demanded a lot of questions") and said that I "lack[ed] good faith" and accused me of sophistry.  (Sophistry!  You're lucky I didn't just curse you out, you ungrateful punk.) You thought you could punch me in the nose and then run away like a coward ("so I'm gone"). If you stay, you stay, but don't tell me now to be civil with you. You want civility? Earn it by demonstrating some yourself. You can start by engaging these ideas honestly. And you can start that by making a plain argument with respect to the central question. Here, I'll help you out:

Are you saying that Roark (and presumably men like Roark in the real world) is not bound by "individual rights" or the principle of the non-initiation of force? That because he is a moral egoist, he has no use for such "man made rules"? Are you saying that Roark (and/or such men) may violate other peoples' rights morally? And that, therefore, his dynamiting of Cortlandt -- though technically initiating physical force -- was nonetheless moral?

Edited February 20, 2013 by DonAthos

[Marc K.]

Respect for individual rights -- for the right of every man to act according to his values, so long as he does not initiate force -- is very much what prevents a "rationally moral person" from interfering with other people. 

 

So why are you not defending Howard Roark's rights? Let us remember who initiated force.

 

Don't tell me you've accepted Jonathan's characterization of fraud and such, have you?