Before I ask questions, let me quote what Rand wrote in her journals about Howard Roark from the book The Fountainhead: “…[H]e can no longer be hurt. The world has no painful surprise for him…Indifference and an infinite, calm contempt is all he feels for the world and for other men who are not like him…Being thoroughly a ‘reason unto himself,’ he does not long for other of his kind [!], for companionship and understanding.”
Howard Roark does not long for others of his kind? I do. I admire people and I want to be admired - it is my version of a trade. But, however, I will not achieve what others view as greatness in order to be admired.
The best way I can think of to put this, and it applies to your other questions as well, is that Roark’s values are self-contained. Note that he does not eschew friendships altogether. In fact he carries on several friendships: with Austen Heller, Mike the Electrician, Steven Mallory and Gail Wynand. He enjoys these kind of friendships because they are like himself (possessed of a “self-sufficient ego” in Roark’s words,) but he doesn’t seek out people like himself; he doesn’t make finding them his purpose. He is his own purpose. Such a purpose doesn’t involve others in any way whatever.
Another quote (of howard roark): “…[T]here is no danger of suffering. He does not suffer, because he does not believe in suffering. Defeat or disappointment are merely a part of the battle [!]. Nothing can really touch him. He is concerned only with what he does. Not how he feels…The world becomes merely a place to act in. But not to feel in.”
When one is alive in this world, you must choose. If one makes a wrong choice, you suffer, or in other words, you live with the consequences, and thus, one prospers from one’s mistakes. If one did not suffer from mistakes, there would be no learning from anything. I think suffering is something very valuable to the survival and happiness of our species. You have to KNOW or FEEL your suffering from wrong decisions to know that they were indeed wrong.
Pain is a reality. Rand never denies that. But for Roark, all pain is merely superficial. It was “suffering that went down only to a certain point.” The reason for this is how Roark regards pain vs. pleasure. Both are real, but only pleasure has significance in itself. Pain, as you point out, is a means to an end, not an end in itself. If one regards pain as significant in itself, then there’s no limit to the depth of suffering one may feel. But if the pain is merely part of the battle to achieve one’s values, then it becomes a superficial obstacle to conquered, part of the price of achievement.
Another quote (of Howard Roark): “…He does not consider his work as concerned with the benefit and convenience of others. They are merely a convenience for his work. He does not build for people; people live in his buildings. He does not expect or wish admiration: he merely expects a humble bow to his superior spirit[!]and its creation…”
If I were at the age of being able to get a job, I would have to be concerned with the benefit and convenience of others. First of all, I want to see humanity prosper, I want to see my friends prosper, and I want to be able to prosper from their achievements as well as my own….I can’t build a space station in order to merely express my genius and creation…the thing that defines one’s work, I think, is of what value it has. A space station would help others solve other mysteries of planets, the universe, and whatever else I cannot think of…but I would want the knowledge of their discoveries as well. I do not view it as altruism; I view it as a trade. For it to be altruism, I would have to want to build this space station for others with no benefit for myself. In this case, I would have all the benefit…and part of my benefit is seeing the people I value benefit.
Again, this is a question of what is primary. The benefit of others, even of his friends, is not of primary value to Roark. His primary value is his own life, and it is to that end that his productive effort is focused. The benefit of others, whether of clients or of friends, is incidental, merely a means to an end. Yes, you’re correct: it’s a trade. But the trade is not the end, it’s the means.
Another quote: “He is in conflict with the world in every possible way…And his chief difference from the rest of the world is that he was born without the ability to consider others. As a matter of form and necessity on the way, as one meets fellow travelers - yes. As a matter of basic, primary consideration - no.”
I consider the ‘others’ of whom I value.
This reinforces what I’ve been saying above. It’s not a question of not considering others. It’s not considering others as primary. That they or their values are not, in themselves, apart from one’s own values, the goal of one’s actions.
Another: “…[N]ot greatly interested in the subject [sex]. Can never lose himself in love. Even his great and only love - Dominique Wynand - is not an all-absorbing, selfless passion. It is merely the pride of a possessor.”
“If he could not have her, it would not break him or affect him very deeply. He might suffer - in his own indifferent way[!]…”
“Were it necessary, he [Roark] could rape her [Dominique] and feel perfectly justified.”
Roark isn’t greatly interested in the subject of sex? Personally, I am greatly interested. It is something beautiful that expresses the love of another human being…if I could not have it, it would affect me very deeply. I would not be indifferent. I just want it the right way, not meaningless.
For the reasons you state, that sex is a expression of love for another person, it is not primary for Roark for the same reason that his friendships are not primary. Before you can say, “I love you,” one must first be able to pronounce the “I”. I’m honestly not quite sure what to make of the “rape” comment, except that it depends largely on Dominique’s psychology: she wanted the pleasure of having Roark, but couldn’t allow it to herself unless it was forced on her. “Rape” was the only way she could have sex. How this relates to Roark’s motivation, I’m not sure.
Now I want to ask those of you who are knowledgeable on Objectivism to tell me if this is what the views of Objectivism are. If it is, I don’t know if I can be a part of this aspect of it…I was very surprised to even find these quotes. I truly hope they are out of context, false, or that I am at least wrong in this regard!…because Roark was a character that I admired, and based on these quotes, I can’t admire him anymore. Sorry if I’m letting any Objectivists down, but I still believe in the rest of the philosophy, from what I know of it.
Counting on everyone’s intellectual honesty,
Brian
Ask yourself why you you admired Roark and whether any of the abouve, properly understood, really prevents you from admiring him still. What Roark embodies is the essence of egoism: that one’s highest value is one’s own life, and that one needs no external, “higher” values to justify one’s existence. If that is what you cannot accept, I would suggest taking a look at the underlying causes of that view. While the ethics of egoism is one of the most distictive aspects of Objectivism, it is not an irreducible fundamental. As Rand put it, “I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason.”
