Hating the rest of the world

[intellectualammo]

In The Fountainhead, Dominique says to Roark:

"Roark, there was a man talking to you out there today, and he was smiling at you, the fool, the terrible fool, last week he was looking at a pair of movie comedians and loving them. I wanted to tell that man: don't look at him, you'll have to hate the rest of the world, it's like that, you damn fool, one or the other, not together[…]"

Why does she say that?

Do you have any feelings of contempt, indignation, do you hate, despise the rest of the world after reading about Roark, Galt? At "things as they are", knowing how they ought to be?

[Reidy]

No.

Your concern seems to proceed from the belief that Dominique speaks for the author here. She doesn't.

[intellectualammo]

I wasn't talking about the author.

Since you brought it up, though...

Rand did seem to have despised, because in the introduction, she say that her husband "convinced me of why one cannot give up the world to those one despises."

Also indignation, as during the writing of the book, "I felt so profound an indignation at the state of "things as they are"".

And she said Dom was herself when in a bad mood.

Edited January 22, 2013 by intellectualammo

[moralist]

Do you have any feelings of contempt, indignation, do you hate, despise the rest of the world after reading about Roark, Galt? At "things as they are", knowing how they ought to be?

I'm not indignant... but I do admit to have a fair amount of contempt for irrational irresponsible people whose utter personal failure to govern themselves has created the bloated government which exists today. I utilize the energy of that contempt to be more industrious and productive, because those tools are not ends in themselves. They're the keys to acquire the economic freedom which protects me from becoming the collatoral damage of their stupidity. I work to make things "as they ought to be" in my own life... just like it was done in Galt's Gulch.

Edited January 22, 2013 by moralist

[intellectualammo]

I work to make things "as they ought to be" in my own life... just like it was done in Galt's Gulch.

I try to as well. It's left me with no one and nearly nothing and barely a job though, a job that I very well may have to shrug soon, too. But I doubt I will, even if I should. Too much is at stake.

[mdegges]

It's important to try and let go of the things that we can't change and focus on what we can. If you're looking for perfection in every aspect of your life, you're always going to be disappointed. The best lesson Dale Carnegie taught me is: "One of the most tragic things I know about human nature is that all of us tend to put off living. We are all dreaming of some magical rose garden over the horizon instead of enjoying the roses that are blooming outside our windows today." Instead of focusing on the oughts or complaining about a few wilted flowers, you can focus on what is and enjoy the flowers that are still standing tall. If there's things you want to change, if you want to plant new seeds or expand your garden, you need to act to make that happen. You'll probably never have a perfect garden, but you'll appreciate what you do have a lot more.

[Hairnet]

I don't tolerate bad people in my life. My quality of life is very high in this reguard. I am alientated from society but I don't ever think about it because I am on good terms with everyone I know. If I weren't they would be gone from lmy life. If I had to talk to every crazy scum bag outhere though i would most likely go nuts.

As far as indignation at the world, I mostly had that sense when I was in highschool and coming into college. It wore away as I started understanding some of the positive things about where I lived and the better things about the people I knew.I was also able to start choosing my friends and family based on what I wanted. I still have indignation for assholes, weirdos, sadists, doormats, degenerates, cultists, hippies, punks, hipsters, anarchists, Europe, cops, public school teachers,, criminals, the DEA,, west coast liberals, juggalos, the plutocracy, and so on and so forth. I just usually don't have to think about it.

Dominique's has a conflicting sense of cynicism and idealism in the novel, which is where her statement comes from.

[ruveyn1]

It's important to try and let go of the things that we can't change and focus on what we can. If you're looking for perfection in every aspect of your life, you're always going to be disappointed. The best lesson Dale Carnegie taught me is: "One of the most tragic things I know about human nature is that all of us tend to put off living. We are all dreaming of some magical rose garden over the horizon instead of enjoying the roses that are blooming outside our windows today." Instead of focusing on the oughts or complaining about a few wilted flowers, you can focus on what is and enjoy the flowers that are still standing tall. If there's things you want to change, if you want to plant new seeds or expand your garden, you need to act to make that happen. You'll probably never have a perfect garden, but you'll appreciate what you do have a lot more.

Carpe Diem?

ruveyn1

[Nicky]

In The Fountainhead, Dominique says to Roark:

"Roark, there was a man talking to you out there today, and he was smiling at you, the fool, the terrible fool, last week he was looking at a pair of movie comedians and loving them. I wanted to tell that man: don't look at him, you'll have to hate the rest of the world, it's like that, you damn fool, one or the other, not together[…]"

Why does she say that?

Do you have any feelings of contempt, indignation, do you hate, despise the rest of the world after reading about Roark, Galt? At "things as they are", knowing how they ought to be?

I think that things are a lot closer to how they ought to be than to how some people around here describe them to be. In the free world that is, of course. There are places where things are indeed pretty bad, and if I was living there I couldn't help but hate it.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Nicky

[whYNOT]

I think that things are a lot closer to how they ought to be than to how some people around here describe them to be. In the free world that is, of course. There are places where things are indeed pretty bad, and if I was living there I couldn't help but hate it.

Glass half full, Nicky?

I'm in such a "pretty bad" place, but think from what I've heard on this forum that it is a matter of degree,

and also of expected standards - so the end result is very similar for both of us.

I find it a struggle sometimes not to despise what's happening around me (and In Europe, and, and...)

It could be seen as The Philosopher's Dilemma, that we have trained ourselves to see and to know - extremely clearly. Further, Objectivists understand what can be, and what should be.

So then what? At bottom, I know without doubt that I can only be happy when I do know. So there's no going back to blissful ignorance. (if it exists, even) There is only forward. When in doubt, I strongly advise to push ahead with what you know, never losing sight of your singular purpose in life, and all other purposes that support it.

To combat the whole world is not any rational egoist's singular purpose.

Individualize, individualize. As we are, so we ought to view other people - never as a group, rather one by one, with full focus. (Take a cue from Rand on that, it was her immense ability - but unlike her - and who has her brilliance? - hold off complete judgment for as long as possible. After which, when you find a person you cannot like and respect, it is then paramount to walk away, for one's own

peace of mind and self-protection.

Even in this hell-hole of angry entitlement and Statist force, (South Africa) I findsome amazing people from all walks of life. That's my "society", and I will not recognise any other.

Good topic. Some thoughtful comments above from Nicky, Michelle, moralist and Hairnet that I agree with.

Edited January 24, 2013 by whYNOT

[Nicky]

Glass half full, Nicky?

No, about 75% full. Even more, if you learn to move around without spilling it.

[moralist]

I try to as well. It's left me with no one and nearly nothing and barely a job though, a job that I very well may have to shrug soon, too. But I doubt I will, even if I should. Too much is at stake.

I understand. It's impossible to enjoy freedom without first securing your economic freedom. And there is a logical orderly process to secure it for yourself. One of the first steps is to find out what your talent is. Everyone has a talent for which others are happy to pay for what you can do well. It can be anything, and there is no such thing as menial work. Anything has the potential to become a prosperous business when you work for yourself. My Father was a self employed janitor and window washer, and he was able to own a home and support his family.

The challenge for each of us is to discover a way to buy ourselves out of slavery. My approach was to learn a simple interesting trade for which I had aptitude and thoroughly enjoyed, simply by first doing it as a job working for someone else. Then I did it for myself. You wouldn't believe the powerful consequences that one simple act can set into motion.

Edited January 24, 2013 by moralist

[moralist]

I find it a struggle sometimes not to despise what's happening around me (and In Europe, and, and...)

What really helped me was to disconnect the television. It really helped me to realize that with which I actually come into direct personal contact is the world for which I am personally responsible. That is my personal sphere of influence where I exercise control by setting the moral tone. Once I realized that my world excludes things for which I had no control or responsibility (which is everything you see on television), the world around me can only be as good as I am. This positive feedback became motivation to refine my life simply by being mindful of of properly addressing the small details over which I have total control and full personal responsibility.

What is outside of your personal sphere of influence and beyond your control and responsibility is within the sphere of influence of others and is their responsibility. I can't fully express how happy this made me when the full realization of this basic truth finally dawned on me.

Edited January 24, 2013 by moralist

[dream_weaver]

In The Fountainhead, Dominique says to Roark:

"Roark, there was a man talking to you out there today, and he was smiling at you, the fool, the terrible fool, last week he was looking at a pair of movie comedians and loving them. I wanted to tell that man: don't look at him, you'll have to hate the rest of the world, it's like that, you damn fool, one or the other, not together[…]"

Why does she say that?

Do you have any feelings of contempt, indignation, do you hate, despise the rest of the world after reading about Roark, Galt? At "things as they are", knowing how they ought to be?

If anything, setting a firm foundation as a framework for basing one's understanding "things as they are" also encompasses distinguishing "how they ought be" from "how they could be". All things ought be what they are. All the choices of the past have brought about what could have been different to be precisely what they ought to be now.