Coping with an Ultimate Goal

[Eurynomus]

Hello all. As you can see, this is my first post, although I have been reading the discussions in this forum and the essays on the main page for quite some time. I haven't yet read ALL of Rand's works, including Atlas Shrugged, but the consensus seems to be that her characters in The Fountainhead are basically prototypes for her characters in Atlas Shrugged. My question pertains to the lifestyle of her ideal objectivist, Howard Roark in The Fountainhead, and maybe it could possibly apply to John Galt, as well.

Now, before I ask my question, if it is in fact answered in Atlas Shrugged or any of Rand's other works, I would appreciate you telling me so, but I would also like to know your thoughts right now.

Rand, in her "Virtue of Selfishness" -- which I have not yet finished-- mentions the need for an ultimate goal. Roark, in The Fountainhead, exemplifies this need in the truly selfish manner; he thinks about how to manifest his creativity in the physical world (his explanation for the point of life) and very little else, if anything at all. Roark's means to this end is through architecture, which, as he explains in his closing statement to the court at the end of the story, can be and is for him a totally self-sufficient profession: he does not bend to the whims of his clients, he does not need to live for others-- essentialy, he is not a second-hander.

Has Rand or any aspect of Objectivism addressed how one is to fulfill their ultimate goal in life if it does not fall into such artistic practices as architecture? Of course one can be fully independent in the world of art, but what about other aspects of life? What if instead of manifesting that sort of selfish-creativity into art, a person's natural talent lies in the field of politics or any other occupation that requires extensive communication with people? As far as conforming to the objectivist ideal in a profession that requires interaction with people, The Fountainhead tells of Gail Wynand, who is not simply doing what he does for himself, but for power over others.

Maybe a hypothetical situation would better illlustrate my question. Say that Jimmy comes into this world and wants to live the self-sustaining life illustrated by Rand. His ultimate goal, however, is not to unleash his creativity into the world of art and architecture, but into something else, something that depends on relationships with people, politics for example. Jimmy has his own selfish goals in politics (but not power), but he cannot afford to act and live as Roark does, because his success is dependent on others. How does the ideal Objectivist cope with an ultimate goal such as this? How does Objectivism justify a career in anything that is not, for the most part, self-sustaining anyways, like art?

[RationalBiker]

How does Objectivism justify a career in anything that is not, for the most part, self-sustaining anyways, like art?

Welcome to the forum.

First question; how is art self-sustaining? What if no one buys the art?

Remember that Roark had customers so he could build his buildings. Roark wasn't always building buildings though since he was working in a quarry at times too. Many, many politicians have alternate occupations as well.

Any form of trade (with politics mostly being a trade of information) requires someone to trade with.

[aequalsa]

How does the ideal Objectivist cope with an ultimate goal such as this? How does Objectivism justify a career in anything that is not, for the most part, self-sustaining anyways, like art?

I think 'self-sustaining' may not be exactly what you mean. What makes architecture good symbolically in the novel is that Roark has absolute control over the design which allows Rand to highlight his independence. He has complete autonomy over this initial step. Later when building the actual building he must deal with other people at some level. It is not shown in great detail because it is probably not essential to the story, but in real life, he would have to deal with contractors and subcontractors, zoning boards, getting permits, the banker lending the money, material suppliers,the eventual owners or real estate agents, etc. She shows a few interactions with them like when he first meets "Mike", but for the most part they are not important because those other people and circumstances are mostly outside of his control.

Ethics, requires volitional conciousness which requires choices in reality. The choices available to you are determined by what exists. Frank Lloyd Wright designed a mile high building that was never built because no one wanted one(at least not enough to pay for it). Any profession is going to be a mix of things which you have control over and things you don't. Your behaviour ought to be judged on how well you act upon that which you have power over. If Roark designed a great building but had a poor contractor who did shoddy work, and the building fell down, roark would have done nothing wrong.

Regarding politics, I(not sure about Rand) do not believe that it is a proper career choice. I think it, if you go into politics at all, should be for a short period of time and never before the age of 40. An action taken to help protect your freedom if you feel a gratefulness to the country you live in which you wish to repay in some measure. Professional politicians are a mark of a statist regime. One citizen statesmen would be infinitely more qualified to make rational decisions after two decades of productivity then then any 50 people out of school with a pretty face, a BA in politics, and an masters in Law. A politicians job is to raise enough money to get reelected. The only way to keep getting reelected is to transfer wealth to those people who give you money to get reelected. This circle requires dishonesty and wealth transfer(stealing) all the way through. I wouldn't recommend that path to anyone interested in living an honest and moral life unless you are independently wealthy, which brings us back to the citizen statesman.

edit:welcome to the forum, btw

Edited July 22, 2006 by aequalsa

[JMeganSnow]

. Say that Jimmy comes into this world and wants to live the self-sustaining life illustrated by Rand. His ultimate goal, however, is not to unleash his creativity into the world of art and architecture, but into something else, something that depends on relationships with people, politics for example. Jimmy has his own selfish goals in politics (but not power), but he cannot afford to act and live as Roark does, because his success is dependent on others.

Enacting a specific, short-term, concrete political goal may require the assistance of many other people just as erecting a particular building does, but politics qua politics requires only you. Keep in mind that there are a lot more ways to be professionally "into" politics than just running for office; you could study political philosophy, teach it, be a political pundit or opinion columnist, you could go into law and become a lawyer and then a judge, you could be a campaign manager, a professional speaker . . . the list is practically endless.

That, and I don't see anything wrong with being a professional politician; it is a field where there is a great need for people that understand abstract theories and how to apply them. There are more ways to get elected than just showering people with money, too; present them with theory and use rhetoric as persuasion. Politics is not necessarily corrupt any more than governments are necessarily evil; even if you never manage to achieve public office, you're still out there fighting the good fight. Just maintain your integrity and never sacrifice your long-term goals for short-term successes.

[Eurynomus]

Okay, awesome, thank you RationalBiker and aequalsa for your responses. Yes, in regards to art being self-sustaining, I knew I was going to come under fire for that comment, and I was aware as I was writing that line of what you said, RationalBiker. But I wasn't sure how else to convey what I mean, and aequalsa was right in saying that the phrase self-sustaining was not well chosen.

And perhaps also, politics was not a good example. What I am trying to figure out is how does the Objectivist pursue a career that is not as isolated as the more artistic careers can be? A career that requires, in order to be successful, a tolerance of second-handers? As far as architecture goes, Roark had pretty much full autonomy over his designs, or he did not go through with a project (which did eventually result in his working the granite quarry). Forgive me, because I am obviously new to the philosophy, but is it not true that any action which requires any submittance, however minute, to another is contradictory to Objectivist ethics? Rand illustrates how Roark acts and carries himself -- which, to others, is in the image of a total prick. But he can afford to do this. Although his profession does rest upon the decisions of others in the form of whether or not they want to buy his product, his is able to find enough like-minded people to keep him going. Roark is Rand's ideal man, to the smallest detail, including how he acts and how he carries himself. He is what an Objectivist should be. But doesn't it seem like his attitude is only applicable to certain professions or occupations? Would it be possible to become the head of a big and successful business with the perceived antisocial attitude carried by Roark?

[Eurynomus]

Okay Jen, thank you for your response too. Another question to add on to my last reply. Wouldn't teaching be shunned upon by Rand, that is, I mean, if you are going by the example she sets with Roark and Dominique Francon? Well, I suppose I could have answered that myself: Obviously not, since Rand is teaching us about her philosophy in the first place.

But I mean, she is illustrating Roark as the ideal man, and Dominique as his ideal mistress. Neither of them are willing to sacrifice what they hold sacred to second handers. How can teaching be justified in this sense?

[JMeganSnow]

But I mean, she is illustrating Roark as the ideal man, and Dominique as his ideal mistress. Neither of them are willing to sacrifice what they hold sacred to second handers. How can teaching be justified in this sense?

You teach what you think is right, to the best of your ability, to people that want to learn it. If the administration doesn't like it, you find someone that does. Or you start your own school. You teach second-graders algebra if you can manage to do so, and you don't pay any attention to complaints that they "aren't ready".

Any kind of career where you trade a value to other people is going to involve those others at some time, the point is that you can't sacrifice your ideas to them. You sell what you want to sell to people that want to buy it. Have you read Atlas Shrugged yet? Ayn Rand covers business and other methods of earning a living a lot more thoroughly in that book.

[aequalsa]

What I am trying to figure out is how does the Objectivist pursue a career that is not as isolated as the more artistic careers can be? A career that requires, in order to be successful, a tolerance of second-handers?

I think I understand what you are asking. Since I am most familiar with myself I'll use me as an example. I am a construction contractor. I have to find people that want things built. Ideally, I would only do business with objectivists, but unfortunately, they do not make up a sizabale market share, pretty much anywhere, so I do work for people who probably have all manner of philosophical shortcomings. (Religious, socialist, etc.) My job as a builder is to build what someone wants built. What they believe about metaphysics really doesn't come up that often and when it does I just go back to talking about the building as quickly as possible.

I have always disliked sales and marketing. They strike me as, usually, dishonest and manipulitive. So in going into business for myself, I possessed some reservations about that aspect of the business. But what I have found to my delight, is that most people with regard to their house or building want something done well and in a reasonable amount of time. So when I go to "sell" a job, I give a price, answer any questions they may have about the job and how it will be done, then give them addresses to other things I have built. They go and look at them and the work I have done does all the "manipulation" for me. I don't have to change who I am or act in any nonintegrated way.

It might be a form of compartmentalization, but, in this manner I can be completely honest without neccesarily causing offense. I don't see the benefit in discussing someones religion with them in general since they arn't likely to change, and even less benefit when I have something to gain by focusing on those aspects of reality where we can find consensus. Their other beliefs are not pertinent to our working relationship and I would guess most professions are the same. Whatever you do, do it well and focus on your job and nothing else. This way you can maintain your integrity and not suffer financial hardships.

The one exception to this policy that I allow myself is that I avoid working for the government or churches directly. There is excellent money in that, but it makes me feel dirty. I am sure I could find ways to justify it to myself, it just doesn't seem worth the risk, effort, or inevitable hassles.

[JMeganSnow]

And perhaps also, politics was not a good example. What I am trying to figure out is how does the Objectivist pursue a career that is not as isolated as the more artistic careers can be? A career that requires, in order to be successful, a tolerance of second-handers?

Politics is a fine example. Ultimately, there is no such thing as a career that requires the tolerance of second-handers: this is precisely what The Fountainhead was written to illustrate. It may be hard, it may almost be impossibly hard, to maintain your integrity in the face of the pressure of the void you may encounter in your chosen field, but in the end the second-handers cannot stop you. They may foil your attempts at any particular goal (such as getting this contract, this time), but as long as there is no censorship-by-force you are always free to keep seeking the rational people that will buy your product, listen to your speeches, and pay for your work.

And as far as the chance that you may never succeed: there are no guarantees in life, not to anyone, not even Peter Keating. Would you rather be Roark, able to face each challenge as it arose, or would you rather be Peter Keating, helpless to deal with reality outside his cocoon of lies?

[aequalsa]

That, and I don't see anything wrong with being a professional politician; it is a field where there is a great need for people that understand abstract theories and how to apply them. There are more ways to get elected than just showering people with money, too; present them with theory and use rhetoric as persuasion. Politics is not necessarily corrupt any more than governments are necessarily evil; even if you never manage to achieve public office, you're still out there fighting the good fight. Just maintain your integrity and never sacrifice your long-term goals for short-term successes.

"90% of politicians give the other 10% a bad name"

You're right Jen. Politics qua politics does not neccessarily have to be evil, it just always is . I was speaking more in regard to our current political climate. I would be curious to know if their are any senators or reps on the national level who get elected without raising a good deal of money and who when elected do not toss slabs of bacon back to the people or companies who paid them to get there.

[hunterrose]

*hunterrose welcomes Eurynomus*

Roark is Rand's ideal man, to the smallest detail, including how he acts and how he carries himself. He is what an Objectivist should be.

Forgive me, because I am obviously new to the philosophy, but is it not true that any action which requires any submittance, however minute, to another is contradictory to Objectivist ethics?

Nah. Some of that is the wrong conclusion to take from Roark's example.

Roark is ideal, but not to the smallest detail. I think giving architechural designs to Keating was like giving vodka to an alcoholic - not ideal to the smallest detail. (This doesn't mean Roark isn't ideal in terms of the primary details, though.)

It's against Objectivist ethics to capitulate one's principles, but every submittance isn't one of principles. Changing the font size in a novel would be insignificant to me, and as such, submitting on such a thing for the sake of, say, more money, wouldn't be the act of sacrilege that it would be for Roark.

Rand illustrates how Roark acts and carries himself -- which, to others, is in the image of a total prick.

But ... would it be possible to become the head of a big and successful business with the perceived antisocial attitude carried by Roark?

No, but Atlas Shrugged's Francisco...

Just maintain your integrity and never sacrifice your long-term goals for short-term successes.

ditto'd

[softwareNerd]

... second handers. How can teaching be justified in this sense?

If you follow that thought to its extreme, wouldn't you have to say that Roark was second-handed because he spoke English, rather than inventing his own language? Not even a super-genius could figure out all of human knowledge in his own lifetime. Even within a single generation, if one follows that thought to its extreme, wouldn't you have to say that any form of trade is second-handed?

If we assume that objective knowledge is possible to human beings, then we can assume that people can learn about different parts of reality and use it to make different things of value that they trade with one another; or, they can also trade the knowledge they have learnt with one another; or, they can trade knowledge for something else.

If Roark wanted to play tennis, he wouldn't be a second hander if he took some classes.

And.... Welcome to the forum.

[Groovenstein]

If Roark wanted to play tennis, he wouldn't be a second hander if he took some classes.

Right on, man. The teacher can't swing the racket for you.

Likewise, with music, I get lots of my production ideas from elsewhere. I listen to lots of Kelly Clarkson-type girl rock, modern rock like Nickelback, 80s rock, etc. I learn techniques and what not from there. For example, from a Staind ballad I pulled the idea of placing distorted guitars a little back in the mix for every chord change on our second verse to fatten it out and create a contrast between it and the first verse. I'm basically building an arsenal of techniques. The creativity is in how I deploy them. Put another way, everyone has to use vocabulary to speak. The creativity is in how you speak/write/etc.

[Eurynomus]

AHH!!! Thank you everyone for your responses. What you've all said makes perfect sense. I guess, ultimately, I was struggling with the idea that Rand seems to illustrate Roark as an extreme, and that sort of extreme would not be feasible for many other professions in society. But thanks to your points, like the one about language and tennis, I see that this is not at all the case.

I think in worrying about what I perceived to be Roark's ultimate success through his extremeness, I was ignoring the fundamental point being made.

[Nate]

"Rand, in her "Virtue of Selfishness" -- which I have not yet finished-- mentions the need for an ultimate goal."

Which essay? I've been hopscotching around in this book. I would like to read this.

Edited August 3, 2006 by Nate

[Eurynomus]

Hmmm... I believe it is actually the first or second essay in that book. But I don't have access to it right now, I am at work, so I will get back to you on that.

[KendallJ]

Hmmm... I believe it is actually the first or second essay in that book. But I don't have access to it right now, I am at work, so I will get back to you on that.

I believe that this might be the development of her "life as the standard of value" basis of ethics. i.e. "life as the ultimate goal". It does not tranlaste literally into a single, specific ultimate goal for a given individual. It translates instead in the virtue of purpose. Your life must be purposeful, not have an ultimate purpose, as such.

[Nate]

It does not tranlaste literally into a single, specific ultimate goal for a given individual.

That's the impression I got to, but that doesn't seem to match what the original poster is implying.

What do you suppose would constitute a moral purpose ?

Edited August 5, 2006 by Nate