Do you have a citation for the Aristotle quote - i.e. a particular location in his writings? Googleand Bingfind others who have quoted the words but none (in a quick perusal) who tell us where he said it. He wasn’t much for first-person statements. He might say, e.g. By ‘F’ I mean… as an alternative phrasing of The definition of __‘F’ is…, but he didn’t go in for autobiography.
If the statement means that performing a particular act voluntarily is more desirable than performing it under legal duress, it’s true in some cases, such as not killing or lying. At the same time, people do a lot under legal duress that wouldn’t be admirable if they did it freely, such as paying for the UN or for political indoctrination in the schools.
So, do some people think that Roark wouldn’t have bombed the Cortlandt building if the Cortlandt building had been privately owned by a capitalist businessman, even if all the other factors, that moved Roark to carry out the bombing, had still been present?
In other words, is there some thought out there that part of Roark’s reasoning, in justifying the bombing, was that federal government’s involvement in areas of the economy, such as housing, is inherently illegitimate, and so Roark was not transgressing on any legitimate rights when carrying out the bombing, since the federal government has no right or power to build or own such property?
To put it another way, do some people think that Roark’s bombing of the Cortlandt building was, in part, at least implicitly, symbolically, or philosophically, a political protest against illegitimate big government intrusion into the free economy?
A more reasonable interpretation would be that there would be no need for bombing if Keating had been able to sue to enforce the contract, as would presumably be the case if the Cortlandt building had been privately owned by a capitalist businessman. However, that would not have made as good a novel.
Do you have a citation for the Aristotle quote - i.e. a particular location in his writings? Googleand Bingfind others who have quoted the words but none (in a quick perusal) who tell us where he said it. He wasn’t much for first-person statements.
It seems to happen a lot that a quotation is attributed to a famous person to draw attention and to lend a (fallacious) air of authority.
My favorite example is a quotation I like very much. “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force, and, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master.” This is usually attributed to George Washington. However, the earliest actual appearance anyone can find seems to be around 1900.
This statement is attributed to Diogenes Laërtius in Book 5 of Βίοι καὶ γνῶμαι τῶν ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ εὐδοκιμησάντων (Lives of Eminent Philosophers)[20] “τὸ ἀνεπιτάκτως ποιεῖν ἅ τινες διὰ τὸν ἀπὸ τῶν νόμων φόβον ποιοῦσιν”. The English translation of that by R. D. Hicks is “(When asked what advantage he had ever gained from philosophy, he replied) ‘This, that I do without being ordered what some are constrained to do by their fear of the law’”. Insofar as there is over a 600 year gap between the two and Diogenes Laërtius is not generally held to be a very reliable author, there is not a strong reason to think that Aristotle actually said this. At least we know it is not just a modern meme.
So, do some people think that Roark wouldn’t have bombed the Cortlandt building if the Cortlandt building had been privately owned by a capitalist businessman, even if all the other factors, that moved Roark to carry out the bombing, had still been present?
In other words, is there some thought out there that part of Roark’s reasoning, in justifying the bombing, was that federal government’s involvement in areas of the economy, such as housing, is inherently illegitimate, and so Roark was not transgressing on any legitimate rights when carrying out the bombing, since the federal government has no right or power to build or own such property?
To put it another way, do some people think that Roark’s bombing of the Cortlandt building was, in part, at least implicitly, symbolically, or philosophically, a political protest against illegitimate big government intrusion into the free economy?
Is it not fair to say that, in the political philosophy of Ayn Rand, it is scandalous, offensive, dangerous, outrageous, illegitimate, immoral, and unconstitutional for the federal gov’t (or any state gov’t) to claim to “own” property that is by its nature part of the free and private economy?
An example of property that is inherently part of the free market of trade and private ownership would be housing for civilians (e.g., citizens who not members of the professional military).
And so, isn’t it reasonable to suppose or draw the inference that it probably was not by accident, happenstance, or random roll of the dice that Ayn Rand wrote her novel _ The Fountainhead _ so that the Cortlandt building that Howard Roark destroyed with dynamite was dubiously and invalidly “owned” by the federal gov’t?
isn’t it reasonable to suppose or draw the inference that it probably was not by accident, happenstance, or random roll of the dice that Ayn Rand wrote her novel _ The Fountainhead _ so that the Cortlandt building that Howard Roark destroyed with dynamite was dubiously and invalidly “owned” by the federal gov’t?
You offer a false dichotomy. Rand’s writings are not 100% about “free market versus government enslavement”. We can easily reject the “random roll of the dice” theory without being forced to accept your construction of her intent. What we do is frame alternative underlying messages. Then, once we are aware that there are different reasonable interpretations, we look for evidence as to what her actual goal was. It is crucial that you be able to check your assumptions and think of alternatives.
Can we infer anything from the fact that the movie pointedly doesn’t tell us that Cortlandt is government property? Keating asks Toohey for help in landing the commission because “you know people in this game”, not saying what game that is. When Roark comes back from his trip and sees what has happened to his design, the owner’s representative says “you can’t sue us”, not saying why. The reason, as far as the viewer knows, could have been that a lawsuit would be too expensive.
The point seems to me to be that Rand was not interested in pushing a political message and found it dispensable when she had to strip her story down to a practical running time.
Can we infer anything from the fact that the movie pointedly doesn’t tell us that Cortlandt is government property? Keating asks Toohey for help in landing the commission because “you know people in this game”, not saying what game that is. When Roark comes back from his trip and sees what has happened to his design, the owner’s representative says “you can’t sue us”, not saying why. The reason, as far as the viewer knows, could have been that a lawsuit would be too expensive.
The point seems to me to be that Rand was not interested in pushing a political message and found it dispensable when she had to strip her story down to a practical running time.
A very pertinent observation.
But I can’t help but speculating about why Ayn Rand might have chosen to withhold this fact (clearly stated in the 1943 novel) from the 1949 film audience.
It would have taken just about 2 seconds for a character or signage in the film to communicate that the federal government owned the Cortlandt building.
Had conditions changed in some way in the USA, from 1943 to 1949, that led her to omit expressing this fact in the movie?
Or had Ayn Rand herself, by 1949, come to regret that she specified this fact in the 1943 novel?
Perhaps some Ayn Rand biographer, who has read all her journals, letters, early drafts, etc., knows the answer to this.
You offer a false dichotomy. Rand’s writings are not 100% about “free market versus government enslavement”. We can easily reject the “random roll of the dice” theory without being forced to accept your construction of her intent. What we do is frame alternative underlying messages. Then, once we are aware that there are different reasonable interpretations, we look for evidence as to what her actual goal was. It is crucial that you be able to check your assumptions and think of alternatives.
In her book “Philosophy: Who Needs It,” Ayn Rand encouraged the practice of “philosophical detection.”
She even expressly compared her idea of philosophical detection to the sort investigations and reasoning carried out by those detectives whose job it is to discover or uncover the initially unknown or hidden facts pertaining to criminal incidents.
As such, I speculate that Ayn Rand would approve of literary interpretation that involves drawing connections as a means to discover possibilities that are not overtly stated in literary texts.
As such, I speculate that Ayn Rand would approve of literary interpretation that involves drawing connections as a means to discover possibilities that are not overtly stated in literary texts.
Ayn Rand overtly state in her literary tests “Check your premises”.
As such, I assert rather than speculate that Rand would not approve of leaping to a conclusion with insufficient evidence especially when there is ample direct evidence for an alternative conclusion that is not even considered.
The point seems to me to be that Rand was not interested in pushing a political message
I just recalled a statement, by Ayn Rand, I think, that she intended _ The Fountainhead _ to be a character study of individualism in the soul and collectivism in the soul, and that, as such, she did not intend _ The Fountainhead _ to be a political book at all.
Whether any story about individualism and collectivism can really be non-political is something I’ve reflected on, and is also something I will have to reflect on more, and investigate further.
I just keep coming back to the view that the philosophies of individualism and collectivism are so inherently political that any story about them is going to be political. But, maybe not. I haven’t read all of _ The Fountainhead _ yet. Maybe when I’ve read it all, I see that is about the state of man’s soul and it is really and truly apolitical.
I do see that, unlike John Galt, Howard Roark is not trying to change the world or the country. Howard Roark just wanted to live his own life his own way. Howard Roark did not go on the radio and try to convince the masses to see things differently. Roark did make a philosophical argument to the jury in his trial pertaining to his destruction of the Courtlandt building. But here again, I think Roark wasn’t really trying to win a following with that courtroom speech; he was just trying to be found “not guilty” so that he could go on with living his life his way.
But even though Howard Roark’s purpose wasn’t to change the world, what about Ayn Rand’s purpose in writing _ The Fountainhead _? Was she, at the time she was writing _ The Fountainhead _, really indifferent to the state of the world and the state of the nation?