Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Would Roark Invite Tooheyites?

Rate this topic


Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

Recommended Posts

I was recently involved in a debate on another forum and the forum owner brought up an interesting issue that I think ought to be debated.

He said that a Howard Roark would not go through an intellectual effort to dis-invite people to an organization he belonged to, but was not the owner of, in an effort to keep out people he disagreed with on fundamental terms. To make this clear, Roark had no say in who was and who was not invited; that was up to the owner. But let's say that Roark realizes that by writing articles a certain way in the newsletter for the organization that he wants to belong to, these people would abhor him and not want to come. Roark knows that by taking a certain intellectual stance consistently, that these people will not want to be involved in this association. He can't convince the owners or managers of the association that these people should explicitly be un-invited, so he does the article writing instead.

Now, let's further stipulate this debate to The Fountainhead characters. And let's say that Austin Heller wants to set up a group of his own, because he loves Roark's buildings, and he thinks that having such an association will further Roark's career. However, Roark is well aware that Elsworth Toohey also has a group, but he can't convince Austin to not invite Toohey's associates -- let's call them Tooheyites, you know that motley group of anti-artists that Toohey collected and promoted. Austin doesn't think it's that big of an issue. But Roark knows better. So he starts writing articles on the objective nature of art; knowing full well that these anti-artists will read these articles and shun him for them -- which is what Roark wants.

Later, Austin finds out he did this intentionally, and gives him a lecture on being civil, polite, and tolerant.

Here are some questions for the debate:

[We can assume Roark is an Objectivist, but I guess we can debate that as well]

Should Roark (or any rational man) be tolerant, civil and polite to those who disagree with his fundamentals?

Is Roark hurting his own integrity to remain silent about the anti-artists in the Tooheyite association?

Is Roark hurting his integrity by not speaking out about the anti-artists in Austin's association?

Is it an aspect of Roark's integrity to want to keep the Tooheyites away from him?

If Roark can write lucid articles on the objective nature of art, and Austin doesn't think it is fitting to have such articles in his newsletter because it will keep some people out, is that sufficient for Roark not to want to have anything else to do with Austin?

Other questions may arise, but I think this will get us off to a good start.

Let the debate begin!

Edited by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 166
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You phrased this debate as whether or not an Objectivist should be polite to a non-Objectivist. In most contexts, I would say yes provided that they are civil toward you as well and nothing that you are doing can be construed as supporting irrational ideas. In this case you must use your best judgement here. However in the situation that you have written about, the issues go far beyond civility. What we are dealing with in your example is the metaphysical root of Roark's individuality, namely his placing his understanding of reality and himself above his concern of other men.

He said that a Howard Roark would not go through an intellectual effort to dis-invite people to an organization he belonged to, but was not the owner of, in an effort to keep out people he disagreed with on fundamental terms. To make this clear, Roark had no say in who was and who was not invited; that was up to the owner. But let's say that Roark realizes that by writing articles a certain way in the newsletter for the organization that he wants to belong to, these people would abhor him and not want to come. Roark knows that by taking a certain intellectual stance consistently, that these people will not want to be involved in this association. He can't convince the owners or managers of the association that these people should explicitly be un-invited, so he does the article writing instead.
(emphasis mine)

First of all, Roark would not think of those other men while writing his articles. His only concern is truth. Thus if he takes a stance consitently, it is only because he sees it a corresponding to the facts of reality. Whether or not it pisses off the Toohey types is of no concern to him. They don't enter into his mind in the first place.

To go even further with this, why would Roark voluntarily enter into an organization that permitted Tooheys? A group whose principle members do not agree on principles (or even the importance of being principled) cannot accomplish anything. If you want evidence of this, look no further than the Libertarian political party. Reading the Fountainhead should have made it explicitly clear that Roark's great passion was designing great buildings, yet he was not interested in joining groups like the A.G.A. or C.A.B. Roark has no interest in 'advancing' his career in that way as will not help him become a better architect. This is the same reason why I have no interest in joining the Musician's Union.

Now, let's further stipulate this debate to The Fountainhead characters. And let's say that Austin Heller wants to set up a group of his own, because he loves Roark's buildings, and he thinks that having such an association will further Roark's career. However, Roark is well aware that Elsworth Toohey also has a group, but he can't convince Austin to not invite Toohey's associates -- let's call them Tooheyites, you know that motley group of anti-artists that Toohey collected and promoted. Austin doesn't think it's that big of an issue. But Roark knows better. So he starts writing articles on the objective nature of art; knowing full well that these anti-artists will read these articles and shun him for them -- which is what Roark wants.

Again the same principles that govern Roark's character are in effect for Roark and most likely for Heller as well. First of all, why would Heller seek out these Tooheyites? The Tooheyite artists practice non-objective art and would have no use for Roark. Nor do any of Toohey's close associates like Roark's work. Second, even if Heller did seek these Tooheyites out, Roark would not neccesarily be interested in how Heller maintains Heller's organization. If Heller is deliberately seeking Tooheyites, then it means one of two things. Heller is either woefully ignorant of the meaning, nature and scope of Roark's work compared to the Tooheyites, or Heller is purposefully trying to tie Roark's name and work to that of charlatans. In either case, the effect is the same and the only solution for Roark is to withold his sanction of that group. Third, any thoughts on the nature of art and architecture that he wished to publish would be done soley for the reason that he wishes to express what his own views on the subject are. If such articles persuaded the Tooheyites to leave Heller's group, that would be a secondary consequence but it would not be Roark's goal. To make that Roark's goal, Roark would become a second-hander in the sense that he is placing other men's opinion of him above stating his own artistic views (even if they so happen to be true).

Above all else, you must remember that Roark's primary concern is truth. He places reality before other men. If he finds it beneficial to deal with another man, then he will do so. Otherwise, he will let other men go about their own business. He is not concerned with what other men may think of him. His integrity, his honesty, his work, his mind, and everything else that makes him what he is cannot be fundamentally touched by other men.

Let me know if this answers your questions.

[edited for grammar and clairfication]

Edited by Pianoman83
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I think: in order to answer questions like this you have to think in terms of fundamentals. The fundamentals when you are dealing with other people, either individually or when they organize into groups, is this:

  1. Is this person or group offering me value?
  2. Is this person or group a threat to my values?

I have to mention in the second case there are two ways a person or group can be a threat to your values. One way is by force, which is a matter for the police or, in cases where the person or group is aided by a foreign government, the military. But the second is that a person can threaten your values by holding or spreading ideas which would lead people to harm your values. The police and the military cannot properly do anything about abstract ideas.

(As an aside, that last sentence is true even in the case of warmongering Islamic states. The military cannot properly make people give up Islam, but it can properly, and must, separate Islam from the use of government power, so that Islam cannot hurt anyone without his own consent. If believers choose to believe they are not being hurt by their beliefs, that is their choice and their delusion. But they must be stopped from forcing anyone else to hurt.)

So now, using those fundamentals, I'll try to address the questions.

Should Roark (or any rational man) be tolerant, civil and polite to those who disagree with his fundamentals?

It depends on whether their disagreement rises to the level of an attack, and whether tolerance, civility, and politeness would amount to doing them a favor.

One should never "tolerate" attacks against one's values. Civility and politeness are not the same thing as tolerance. Being civil and polite brings honor upon oneself and is not useful to one's ideological opponents, who would of course prefer to have their enemies frothing at the mouth, because frothing at the mouth makes one appear to be driven by emotion rather than reason.

Of course, maintaining a cool head and demeanor in the face of attacks is a difficult skill to master, especially when one is passionate about one's values, and strong emotions are justified.

Is Roark hurting his own integrity to remain silent about the anti-artists in the Tooheyite association?

Is Roark hurting his integrity by not speaking out about the anti-artists in Austin's association?

Only if his silence implies he agrees with them. In the Tooheyite case it does not. In Austin's case it does, because Roark is giving value to the association. He would have to specify that his values and theirs are exclusive.

Is it an aspect of Roark's integrity to want to keep the Tooheyites away from him?

Yes, since they threaten his values and, by their own admission, they do not value the primary thing he offers to them. If they claim they do value what he offers, why should he help them try to maintain a contradiction? If he lets them get away with hurting him, they will hurt him more.

If Roark can write lucid articles on the objective nature of art, and Austin doesn't think it is fitting to have such articles in his newsletter because it will keep some people out, is that sufficient for Roark not to want to have anything else to do with Austin?

Yes, because what value would Austin offer otherwise? Austin's admiration for Roark's architecture would be nullified if Austin used his own time and money to provide a platform to those who advocate its antithesis.

I hope this helps.

[Edited several times playing with the wording, replacing pronouns with their antecedents, removing words like "probably" and "often" when I can't think of any exceptions, etc.]

Edited by necrovore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should Roark (or any rational man) be tolerant, civil and polite to those who disagree with his fundamentals?

That's package-dealing. Being civil and polite is one thing, tolerant is another. It is quite possible to be highly intolerant in a civil and polite manner. Indeed, unless one wants to get into a physical fight it is incumbent upon rational people to be as civil and polite as possible while expressing any such intolerance. Fransisco's quip to James about when manners are needed the most, just prior to the money speech, comes to mind on this point.

Is Roark hurting his own integrity to remain silent about the anti-artists in the Tooheyite association?

Yes. Either Austin expressly or impliedly says no criticism is permitted, in which case Roark would never join in the first place, or Roark is free to express his intolerance for the anti-artists to Austin - in a civil and polite manner, of course.

Is it an aspect of Roark's integrity to want to keep the Tooheyites away from him?

Most certainly, on a few points. One is that while Roark just doesn't think about Toohey when Toohey is just writing columns it is hard not to think when Toohey and his followers may be up close and personal, where Roark may be regularly asked his opinion on a fellow group member's contribution to the newsletter. Who would want to be regularly pressured to read that trash and have it brought to mind!?? Another is that Roark would not want to have his style associated with those of the vermin, as would likely eventuate by common voluntary membership in the same group (think of the prat with the metronomes being touted as exemplar of individualism just as Roark is). I am sure more points could be thought up, too.

If Roark can write lucid articles on the objective nature of art, and Austin doesn't think it is fitting to have such articles in his newsletter because it will keep some people out, is that sufficient for Roark not to want to have anything else to do with Austin?

By itself, it is sufficient to cease being a member of that group right there and then, but as to continued association with Austin generally that would depend on his response both to Roark's articles' contents aside from others' responses and to Roark's civil and polite explanation as to why he is highly intolerant of the Tooheyites as members of the group. If Austin wont consider the matter and rethink his admission policies, then I would say to stop associating with him.

---

In part I think this is an example of a conflation I have seen in other places and had some thought about, and which is itself evident in the packaging of tolerance with civility and politeness. It is as though you are conflating the right to expression of a judgement with desire to make the situation conform to that judgement as though the one expressing the judgement had full authority to enact the conformity. In the present scenario, you are implying that Roark's judgement about membership criteria is tantamount to Roark dictating those criteria to Austin. Roark has every right to criticise those criteria, and in fact has the obligation to make a judgement for the express purpose of deciding whether or not to continue associating with Austin. That is not dictating anything to Austin, and is not a breach of Austin's rights. I see this conflation in general discussions where someone says "people shouldn't do this and should do that" and someone else responds with something along the lines of that first someone being dictatorial when that first someone could be just speaking about ethics rather than politics. For example, I can say that much recreational drug-taking is highly immoral, but this judgement is not automatically an approval for laws prohibiting the trade in recreational drugs.

JJM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Roark hurting his own integrity to remain silent about the anti-artists in the Tooheyite association?

Only if his silence implies he agrees with them. In the Tooheyite case it does not.

Yes. Either Austin expressly or impliedly says no criticism is permitted...

Aha, I think John McVey noticed something I failed to: that we are talking about Roark remaining silent in the context of Austin's publication.

In this case I think it would be a big mistake for Roark to assent to being muzzled, so I agree with John McVey. That's because Roark's silence in such a context would be taken as assent.

My previous answer assumed a more general context: one is not obligated to speak up about every wrong idea that pops up in the world, but then, in that context, one is not promising to remain silent, should a wrong idea threaten more directly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should Roark (or any rational man) be tolerant, civil and polite to those who disagree with his fundamentals?

Let's stick to rational man (I don't want to use Roark).

In the context of those 'other people' being members of the same organization he voluntarily joined (being fully aware that "those people" are also members) and his interactions with them being through this organization - yes he should be polite and civil. He can still debate against their incorrect ideas on intelectual level, writing persuasive essays, refuting their arguments but not attacking them personally in hope that they will leave.

It is like joining a private internet message board. One does so with a full understanding of its rules and membership requirements. If you don't like it - you can always leave. If you decide to stay - you have no right to go against the rules set up by the message board owner .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's make it more specific:

Is it morally obligatory for Objectivist social groups to require members to sign a Loyalty Oath, specifically barring Kellyites from participating? If not, then is it appropriate for members to identify and target Kellyites within the group, in an effort to keep them from attending social functions?

In my view, the answer to both questions is "no."

If other members are causing problems at a group function, the appropriate thing to do is notify the group's organizer. If you have major problems with the way the group organizer deals with the issue, boycott the group. The Admins here can speak for themselves, but I would guess that it would not be OK with them for you to attempt to "run off" any Objectivism Online members that you have a problem with.

--Dan Edge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I deliberately chose characters from one of Ayn Rand novels (The Fountainhead) for the sake of talking about this in terms of abstract principles which have a grounding in reality, so as not to get bogged down in, let's say, recent personalities (i.e Kelley and Branden). I mean, because the same thing applies to Kantians, Platonists, Christians, etc. In other words, to be honest, any organization centered around Objectivism -- even message boards -- has to have some sort of minimal intellectual standards of who is going to be permitted to participate; else why call it a name in relation to Objectivism at all? Would a Kantian presenting Kantianism call it The Objectivist Message Board? -- well, he might, since he doesn't know much about the correspondence theory of truth.

And merely by writing an essay on the Correspondence Theory of Truth in the affirmative, you are already chasing away the Kantians, for which I thank you -- unless you want to apologize for that? I sure wouldn't, and neither would Roark. That wasn't your direct purpose, but there is a correspondence between ideas and existence, and even the Kantians react that way when you start talking about ideas corresponding to reality -- i.e. they hate your guts for it!

I think the idea of civility needs to be fleshed out a bit more in this debate. It may well be a package deal to try to talk about civility, politeness and tolerance in the same breath; after all, when Toohey asked Roark what he thought of him, Roark replied, "But I don't think of you." Was Roark being civil? If by that you mean Roark didn't punch out Toohey, then yes, he was being civil.

But what does being civil mean on a discussion board? If someone says that 2+2=22, and one corrects him, is one being civil? Or does it have to be tied up in a pretty flowery bow and ribbon for it to be considered a civil reply? I think Roark, Francisco, and Galt were being civil, even though they sure as heck intellectually flattened some people.

An essay on the correspondence theory of truth would intellectually flatten the Kantians (if it was done in a fully systematic manner requiring many pages); but is doing that being civil and polite? I mean if these good-guy characters are portraits of moral characterizations -- the ideal man -- then can we learn a lesson from them in how to deal with those who disagree with the Objectivist position?

I certainly don't think they ought to be invited; and if writing a few objective essays will keep them away, then why not do that? I agree this shouldn't be one's sole criteria for writing on a board; that like Roark and Galt one ought to live for oneself and only for oneself. But I tried to point out on another board that speaking out rationally on all the issues that you are familiar with and can be cogent about is all that it will take to win the world.

In other words, don't let the irrational make a stand.

This is similar to Ayn Rand's advise for living in an irrational world: Never fail to pronounce moral judgement. I think there is a corollary to that statement: Never fail to pronounce intellectual judgement (within the grounds of being selfish).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have provided you with the principle behind this situation regardless of who "the other people" are. You don't have a right to enforce standards which are not what the owner wishes. There is a difference between correcting someone and belittering someone. There is a difference between intelectual argument and an insult. If ones true intent is to communicate ideas (not just patronize) one ought to pay attention not only to the content but also to the tone of ones writing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have provided you with the principle behind this situation regardless of who "the other people" are. You don't have a right to enforce standards which are not what the owner wishes.

I think we may be talking past one another.

I certainly agree that the owner / operators of an association have the right to set the standards of what takes place on their property; just as Austin Heller, in my example, had the right to invite Tooheyites, if he wanted to.

But certainly, the writer has to follow his own standards, and act according to his best judgement in a given forum.

What I'm thinking about here is The Ayn Rand Column, where Ayn Rand wrote for a paper that was definitely not an Objectivist hot spot. And yet, she wrote according to her own standards -- and at least indirectly, against many of the readers of that paper and the other columnists. And she definitely wanted to drive out both Liberalism and Conservatism. I don't know which that paper was, nor why she stopped writing for them; but the point is that she did not compromise her principles.

Roark would be in a similar position with respect to writing for a newsletter owned and run by someone who did not know as much about art or having rational integrity as he did. I don't know that Austin Heller knew about the commission of the bank that Roark walked out on, but they did meet, if I remember correctly, under a similar circumstance. And Heller went Roark's way.

In other words, yes, property rights are supreme -- in a context; but the writer should not compromise his principles in an effort to "fit in" to the wishes of the owner of the property. In fact, this would be like Roark having clients so he could build, rather than designing for himself and getting clients based on his own standards.

That is, one's own rational virtue, by man's life as the standard, must be the ruling factor.

Roark was not imposing a standard on anyone. He lived and built by his own standards -- and dealt with people based on those standards; being benevolent to those who agreed with his standards, while not being benevolent to those who were against his standards. If by "benevolent" one means affirming a welcoming spiritual invitation and response to another.

In the context of showing that someone is incorrect in a statement -- i.e. 2+2=22 -- Dr. Peikoff's essay Fact and Value should make one's stance clear. Saying 2+2=22 is not life affirming, because it is against the facts of reality and therefore against man's mind and life to accept it uncritically. And one should speak out against it.

But if one is not free to say such in a forum, according to the owner operators, then the writer would definitely have to go elsewhere; as Roark turned down that bank commission.

So, is it civil to speak one's mind critically and forthrightly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, yes, property rights are supreme -- in a context; but the writer should not compromise his principles in an effort to "fit in" to the wishes of the owner of the property.

This is a strawman.

The requirement of maintaining a certain level of civility in a debate is in no way limiting one's freedom of expressing a disagreement or advocating the right ideas.

In the context of showing that someone is incorrect in a statement -- i.e. 2+2=22 -- Dr. Peikoff's essay Fact and Value should make one's stance clear. Saying 2+2=22 is not life affirming, because it is against the facts of reality and therefore against man's mind and life to accept it uncritically. And one should speak out against it.

Another strawman.

But if one is not free to say such in a forum, according to the owner operators, then the writer would definitely have to go elsewhere;

Sure, if one in fact is not free to express their opinion - that is however not the context which you provided.

So, is it civil to speak one's mind critically and forthrightly?

You seem to be drawing a false dichotomy between the two. One can be critical and forthright yet civil and respectful (one of the characteristics of a good teacher).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it morally obligatory for Objectivist social groups to require members to sign a Loyalty Oath, specifically barring Kellyites from participating? If not, then is it appropriate for members to identify and target Kellyites within the group, in an effort to keep them from attending social functions?

In my view, the answer to both questions is "no."

Right on, Dan!

Much of the blazing reality here is: If someone is wrong, you can always kill him with logic. Make him look bad by devastating him with your arguments and hugely superior reason. This will force him to either (1) agree or (2) come up with better arguments or (3) descend into nasty evasion and personal abuse. Once #3 happens, then you can kick him out. Not before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think civility is the right kind of a standard. After all, as far as we know, Kant was very civil, and polite (by conventional standards), and yet he wrote the most viciously evil philosophy ever created. So, if someone says that existence doesn't exist, or if it does we can't know anything about it with our sense or our mind; but he does so while gently sipping a martini, then that's fine because he was being civil?

Or take a look at Toohey in The Fountainhead. He was certainly always smooth and polite, in his column and in his dealings with others. So would it be OK to invite him to an Objectivist function? Do you think your kindness towards him or others like him would get him to change his mind? Can one kill evil with kindness?

Or take a look at Francisco, who stated his money speech during a social gathering in reply to something he overheard one of the guests say. Was he being rude and uncivil? That patron certainly thought he was being rude -- I mean he totally disrupted her enjoyment of the party by talking about the operation of moral law.

Suppose you wanted to reply to the following statement:

2+2=22

and you reply:

This seems to be the result of an epistemological problem. In the process of addition, one does not take the two numerals and place them side by side to get the resulting answer, which it seems you are doing. If one follows the correct thinking procedure, one arrives at 2+2=4. One does this by adding two items to two other items and then one can count them; 1, 2, 3, 4. Thus validating that 2+2=4, not 22.

Now, I ask you; is this a civil reply?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think civility is the right kind of a standard. After all, as far as we know, Kant was very civil, and polite (by conventional standards), and yet he wrote the most viciously evil philosophy ever created. So, if someone says that existence doesn't exist, or if it does we can't know anything about it with our sense or our mind; but he does so while gently sipping a martini, then that's fine because he was being civil?

Another strawman. A mode of delivery of an idea has no bearing on its validity. Tactfulness, respectful tone is not equal to appeasement.

Or take a look at Toohey in The Fountainhead. He was certainly always smooth and polite, in his column and in his dealings with others. So would it be OK to invite him to an Objectivist function? Do you think your kindness towards him or others like him would get him to change his mind? Can one kill evil with kindness?

And another strawman. One fights evil ideas with reason.

I also want to point out that the truly and deliberately evil men are a very small minority.

Or take a look at Francisco, who stated his money speech during a social gathering in reply to something he overheard one of the guests say. Was he being rude and uncivil? That patron certainly thought he was being rude -- I mean he totally disrupted her enjoyment of the party by talking about the operation of moral law.

Fictional characters' choices/behaviours are those which Rand selected for the purpose of either furthering the plot or revealing a philosophical message. They are not necessarily the choices that real people in similar situation should always make. It depends on context and in the context of your situation we have already covered the principle involved.

Suppose you wanted to reply to the following statement:

2+2=22

and you reply:

This seems to be the result of an epistemological problem. In the process of addition, one does not take the two numerals and place them side by side to get the resulting answer, which it seems you are doing. If one follows the correct thinking procedure, one arrives at 2+2=4. One does this by adding two items to two other items and then one can count them; 1, 2, 3, 4. Thus validating that 2+2=4, not 22.

Now, I ask you; is this a civil reply?

There is no enough context provided here. For one, I do not know the audience. This could be an error of knowledge and not of method. Without knowing I see no benefits from including in my answer "this is a result of an epistemological problem" and "if one follows the correct thinking procedure". I certainly would not have said that to a student learning addition. My reply would only include the correct answer and its clear explanation.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first question would be about Austin's purposes and plans. The example says "having such an association will further Roark's career", but does not provide detail regarding the relationship between that purpose and Austin's position on Toohey-ites. Does Austin expect Toohey-ites to like Roark and write well about him and his style of architecture, or does he want to see if there are some potentially good folk among them, or does including them allow him to invite their clients whom he can them "convert", or does he want an all-inclusive architect's association to further some general goals (say) w.r.t. to laws, or does he include them for some other reason? Austin's reason is something we need to understand, in order to decide whether he or Roark is right in the basic underlying question. I don't think one can proceed very far on this without going back to these purposes and understanding them well. An association to "further Roark's career" will have different rules of behavior compared to an association to (say) "learn chess".

If we decide that Austin is wrong, what next? Shouldn't Roark quit Austin's group? If not, there must be a reason to stay. In your example, you say that Roark stayed, but acted in a way that would cause the Toohey-ites to "shun him". On the face of it, I do not see Roark acting this way -- he would probably settle the underlying issue with Austin one way or the other. He would either leave, or would decide on a set of ground-rules that would satisfy his interests and would be agreeable to Austin (who "owns" the group). In the example, Roark decides not to do this. Instead he acts in some way contrary to what Austin wants in his group. Having not being able to convince Austin to ban certain people, Roark decides to take it upon himself to ban them, apparently knowing that he is acting against Austin's rules within Austin's association.

Since it is Austin's organization, Roark should decide whether he wants to behave according to Austin's rules, or quit. Depending on the nature of Austin's position, he can do more than quit: stop being friends with Austin, denouncing him, etc. However, if he stays, then he would be implying a "sanction of the rules with objection", and should stick to the rules. If Roark quits, the association would then become pointless, since its purpose is to further Roark's career. The other reason for Roark to stay would be if he has decided to purposely undermine Austin and his organization. That would be like the Fransisco example, and Roark should fully expect Austin to catch on and not invite him back. Like Fransisco, he would understand that the guests and host of the party would consider his speech rude. He does not share any common objectives with his host and the party-guests. Instead, he is using the host's party for his own objectives. If he was someone other than Fransisco, he would soon not be invited anywhere. This might suit him just fine.

However, as I said, the main thing is to understand Austin's purpose and reasoning. If Austin was right, Roark just ended up trying to undermine something good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Softwarenerd, I gave a hypothesis about Heller's reasons above in the second post. However, I must add that for the reasons I stated, Heller would not have taken such a step given how he is presented in the book.

Again the same principles that govern Roark's character are in effect for Roark and most likely for Heller as well. First of all, why would Heller seek out these Tooheyites? The Tooheyite artists practice non-objective art and would have no use for Roark. Nor do any of Toohey's close associates like Roark's work. Second, even if Heller did seek these Tooheyites out, Roark would not neccesarily be interested in how Heller maintains Heller's organization. If Heller is deliberately seeking Tooheyites, then it means one of two things. Heller is either woefully ignorant of the meaning, nature and scope of Roark's work compared to the Tooheyites, or Heller is purposefully trying to tie Roark's name and work to that of charlatans. In either case, the effect is the same and the only solution for Roark is to withold his sanction of that group. Third, any thoughts on the nature of art and architecture that he wished to publish would be done soley for the reason that he wishes to express what his own views on the subject are. If such articles persuaded the Tooheyites to leave Heller's group, that would be a secondary consequence but it would not be Roark's goal. To make that Roark's goal, Roark would become a second-hander in the sense that he is placing other men's opinion of him above stating his own artistic views (even if they so happen to be true).

Above all else, you must remember that Roark's primary concern is truth. He places reality before other men. If he finds it beneficial to deal with another man, then he will do so. Otherwise, he will let other men go about their own business. He is not concerned with what other men may think of him. His integrity, his honesty, his work, his mind, and everything else that makes him what he is cannot be fundamentally touched by other men.

(edited first sentence)

Edited by Pianoman83
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Pianoman, but if those were Austin's reasons, then why would Roark join the group in the first place; or, having learnt the reasons, why would he not leave? According to the example, Roark stayed, but acted in a way that would cause the Toohey-ites to "shun him". On the face of it, I do not see Roark acting this way.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having not being able to convince Austin to ban certain people, Roark decides to take it upon himself to ban them, apparently knowing that he is acting against Austin's rules within Austin's association.

Actually, in the example given, Roark would not be banning anybody. All he is doing is writing essays on the objective nature of art. Given Toohey's group and those associating with it, these type of people would not want anything to do with Roark, except insofar as to pretend that they are as significant as Roark is in terms of art produced. It's one of the reasons why Keating kept hovering around Roark and turned to him when he was in a difficult intellectual problem regarding architecture. But Keating was a second-hander and craved other's approval, including Roark's, which is why he went to so many social events.

Of course, Roark would not have the same motivations. Roark would only go to such functions if he thought he could meet interesting people there -- first-handers, such as himself. In fact, Austin kept trying to get him to go to these social functions to "mix with" people who might become Roark's clients. And Roark turned down the invitations, until he found out Dominique was going to be at one of them. So, even though Toohey was also going to be there, the value of being with Dominique was sufficiently high enough that Roark went. And it was their first meeting after the granite quarry.

So, it's not that Roark refused to go to some of these functions because they were social events, but rather because they were social events full of second-handers. If he could go to social functions and meet other first-handers, I think he would enjoy that. After all, he liked being with Steven Mallory and Dominique, and later even liked being with Wynand; because they were his type of people.

Austin knew a lot of people, and by having social functions of his own, could be at least somewhat selective about who to invite and who not to. And, who knows, Roark might meet other Mallorys or even other Mikes; and be able to have better people working for him on his projects. Of course, there is nothing wrong with socializing for its own sake if the right people are there.

Don't you enjoy meeting other Objectivists and discussing Objectivism with them in person and on boards?

I sure do, and I don't think I'm a second-hander.

However, Toohey or the Tooheyites being involved would decrease the value of the event. Roark basically ignored Toohey at that social event, but if there had been more Roarks, Dominiques, Mikes and Mallorys there; or even more Dagnys, Franciscos, and Reardons there -- wouldn't that be even better?

In other words, the invitation for discussions and socializing ought to be open for the rational, but closed to the irrational. Of course, one could be selective once one is there; but I think being pre-selective in one's writings beforehand means that you have given the other rational people a reason to seek one out; and the irrational a "reason" to avoid one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I enjoy meeting good folk, and understand that Roark would too. I also understand that Roark would not want to have Toohey-ites around. However, if it's Austin's show and if he told Roark to act a certain way on his turf (like not writing about objective art, or anything rational or irrational), then Roark would probably try to convince Austin of his viewpoint. If unsuccessful, he would probably respect Austin's right to set irrational rules, but refuse to have anything to do with the association. Of course, the association would collapse, since its specific purpose was the furtherance of Roark's career.

It all comes back to the purpose of the association. For instance, someone might start a bridge club and tell people that they aren't allowed to talk about politics and religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Pianoman, but if those were Austin's reasons, then why would Roark join the group in the first place; or, having learnt the reasons, why would he not leave? According to the example, Roark stayed, but acted in a way that would cause the Toohey-ites to "shun him". On the face of it, I do not see Roark acting this way.

We must be talking at crosspoints here because I didn't see Roark acting that way either and I tried to explain that in the first post I made on this topic. He wouldn't join Heller's group, nor would Heller seek to form a group of that kind. If Roark were to publish his artistic views, it would be for the sole reason that he wishes to communicate his ideas to those that are interested, but he would not publish his views to merely piss certain people off as that would be a form of second-handedness by placing the negative opinion of others above stating the truth of his views.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. *sigh*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Roark were to publish his artistic views, it would be for the sole reason that he wishes to communicate his ideas to those that are interested, but he would not publish his views to merely piss certain people off as that would be a form of second-handedness by placing the negative opinion of others above stating the truth of his views.

I agree with this. Roark would not publish articles for the sake of getting some people angry at him. However, we may be talking past one another due to the way I phrased the initial set-up.

But let's say that Roark realizes that by writing articles a certain way in the newsletter for the organization that he wants to belong to, these people would abhor him and not want to come. Roark knows that by taking a certain intellectual stance consistently, that these people will not want to be involved in this association.

I guess that could be read as him doing certain writing for the sake of keeping people out. What I was trying to communicate is that he wrote the articles for the sake of presenting an objective understanding of art, though he does realize that the secondary consequences will be that certain people -- the Tooheyites -- would abhor him for taking that stance.

There are many people in The Fountainhead who abhor Roark's buildings, and not just the Tooheyites, but the Classicists as well. This is similar to both intrinsicists and subjectivists abhorring the Objectivist ethics.

Or let me ask the question another way. Some aspects of Dr. Peikoff's essay "Fact and Value" are written for the sake of keeping certain people out of the Objectivism movement. Was Dr.Peikoff being a second-hander when he wrote this? I don't think so, and I think Roark could have written a similar essay regarding architecture and art that would explicitly say that if you agree with Toohey then please drop out of our association, without becoming a second-hander.

I wasn't trying to denigrate Austin Heller, but I think he is presented in the novel as someone who went by what he liked in art, rather than having an explicit intellectual understanding of art. In other words, it was more a sense of life decision for him, rather than an explicit philosophic understanding, that led him to like Roark and his buildings. And based on his sense of life he would want to promote Roark, but sense of life is not enough when one is up against the Tooheyites. I think Roark would understand this, but I think Austin would not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or let me ask the question another way. Some aspects of Dr. Peikoff's essay "Fact and Value" are written for the sake of keeping certain people out of the Objectivism movement. Was Dr.Peikoff being a second-hander when he wrote this? I don't think so, and I think Roark could have written a similar essay regarding architecture and art that would explicitly say that if you agree with Toohey then please drop out of our association, without becoming a second-hander.

I find this misleading. Fact and Value was written on correcting the false claims that Kelly made in his essay, A Question of Sanction. Given Dr. Peikoff's extensive knowledge of Objectivism and his years of being mentored by Ayn Rand, he is regarded as the world's foremost authority on Objectivism. When Kelly published AQOS it caused quite a bit of confusion for those who were just beginning their study of Objectivism. Someone of Dr. Peikoff's level was needed to clarify the truth of the ideas in question and whether or not those ideas are a part of Rand's philosophy. In both cases the answer was no. In order to undertsand why, one needed to read Fact and Value in order to understand what the actual Objectivist positions are on the issues that Kelly raised. This was in fact the main purpose of this essay. Once Dr. Peikoff established the Objectivist positions were on such issues, it was easy to arrive at the conclusion that Dr. Peikoff ends with:

Now I wish to make a request to any unadmitted anti-Objectivists reading this piece, a request that I make as Ayn Rand's intellectual and legal heir. If you reject the concept of "objectivity" and the necessity of moral judgment, if you sunder fact and value, mind and body, concepts and percepts, if you agree with the Branden or Kelley viewpoint or anything resembling it—please drop out of our movement: drop Ayn Rand, leave Objectivism alone. We do not want you and Ayn Rand would not have wanted you—just as you, in fact, do not want us or her. As a matter of dignity and honor, tell yourself and the world the exact truth: that you agree with certain ideas of Ayn Rand, but reject Objectivism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this misleading. Fact and Value was written on correcting the false claims that Kelly made in his essay, A Question of Sanction.

I'm not trying to be misleading, so I ought to clarify my position.

I completely agree with Fact and Value, and I think it is implicit in Galt's speech where he talks about: "Is 2+2=4 right or wrong?" And further states that this is an aspect of morality -- i.e. deciding if a particular idea conforms to reality or not is an aspect of being moral. And I think one ought to have that attitude for all of one's conscious moments. That is, one ought to consider every idea critically to see if it conforms to reality and then to determine what impact following that idea will have on one's life (by man's life as the standard). If the idea conforms to reality and it will be beneficial to follow that idea, then the idea is good -- good for you; if the idea does not conform to reality or if following it will not be beneficial to you (or harmful) then it is bad -- bad for you. This is an aspect of being objective; of being oriented towards existence and living one's life as a rational being.

What I've been trying to get at is that this attitude involves more than two individuals: David Kelley and Nathaniel Branden. It would involve Roark dealing with the Tooheyites and the heroes of Atlas Shrugged dealing with their enemies (James Taggart et al).

In one's daily life, the issue of Kelley and Branden may not come up explicitly, but if one is against the methodology of morally evaluating an idea (as indicated above), then one is following the methodology of Kelley or Branden.

So, if someone says that 2+2=22, one has to morally condemn that idea (and the implicit incorrect methodology), regardless if it is said by a two year old or a world class mathematician. The same holds true for incorrect understandings of Objectivism, whether these are said by those new to Objectivism or by someone who has been studying it all of his life.

A wrong idea is bad. A correct idea is good.

So, don't consider it to be uncivil if someone corrects you strictly factually. He is acting in the self-defense of his consciousness -- i.e. being selfish with regard to his own knowledge; as rationality (a moral virtue) requires him to do.

Howard Roark would think that is was a very bad idea to invite Tooheyites to any function that was supposedly centered around objective art. They don't belong there; just as non-objective art does not belong in the Quent Cordair Gallery (to give them an " 'at a boy plug"). So, I think he would do what he thought was appropriate to keep them at bay; including writing articles on the objective nature of art, which the Tooheyites by their nature would abhor.

And I do think that having an Objectivist organization does require keeping certain people at bay -- those who refuse to be objective; whether they be Kelleyites, Brandenites, Tooheyites, or any other non-objective classification you care to come up with.

It's simply the correspondence theory of truth applied to a moral determination of who belongs there and who doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if someone says that 2+2=22, one has to morally condemn that idea (and the implicit incorrect methodology), regardless if it is said by a two year old or a world class mathematician.
What do you mean by "morally condemn"? You probably do not mean that one has a moral obligation to voice one's objection to every falsehood spoken by anyone in any situation?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean by "morally condemn"? You probably do not mean that one has a moral obligation to voice one's objection to every falsehood spoken by anyone in any situation?

By morally condemning a wrong idea and morally praising a good idea, I mean that one ought to either affirm it as being bad or affirm it as being good, at least within the realm of one's own consciousness. I don't think there can be a moral obligation for someone to go around hunting down all the bad ideas as, say, an end in itself; as some kind of "holy crusade."

However, when one encounters an idea, then one ought to morally evaluate it within the sphere of one's own knowledge -- at least to oneself -- so that bad ideas do not get accepted by default of not having been evaluated and good ideas get accepted more readily by having been so evaluated.

I'll give you an example:

The other day I was watching a wonderful science program called "The Sun" on The Science Channel. The way it presented scientific evidence regarding the nature of the sun was very clear and well presented. It was because of the Space Age and all that it implies that led us to knowing so much about our own star.

Near the end of the program, the writers wanted to offer moral guidance to the viewers: Who should we turn to now that we have all of this knowledge and the great technology that helped make it possible?

They suggested that we turn to the ways of the Hopi Indians; because they knew how to live off the land without disturbing it much for hundreds or thousands of years.

I kid you not!

Now, I submit to you that this is a truly evil idea; especially after having shown the wonderful accomplishments of the Space Age. The implication was that we need to either give up on all of our technical machinery that makes our life better or to live a little less (a lot less) so as to preserve our dwindling resources.

Dwindling resources? Why the program itself spoke about how we were this close to having nuclear fusion energy power plants, which would give us almost unlimited electrical energy!

This is 2+2=22 writ large. The juxtaposition of the Space Age and Hopi Indians just don't integrate together.

I morally condemned the idea privately, in my own apartment, to myself.

But it's such a good example that I thought I would share it with the rest of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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