Have You Noticed?


Brant Gaede

Recommended Posts

Mixing up the characters does spoil the joke. I went to bed chortling to myself, "Korky," not realizing my gaff.

Something that is even more embarrassing is seeing someone again who you last saw twenty years ago and not recognizing them or remembering their name. It happens a lot when you live in one spot for most of your later life. I might walk past someone in the supermarket, and wonder, who the heck was that who said Hi?

Imagine if you were wearing "goggle glasses," with face recognition software, that would provide you with their complete profile.

Attila the Hun!

--Brant

run. run, run

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Opening and reading The Fountainhead here and there something struck me a quite odd--how so many characters call Howard Roark "Roark" when it is literally inappropriate. Dominique marries Peter Keating (an instance of her "stupid" [Ayn Rand] behavior) and jilts him on her wedding night for one last night in Roark's bed. P. 386 hb: "'I love you, Roark.' She had said it for the first time."

I think there are two problems here. The obvious one and the fact that "Howard" compared to "Roark" is a next to nothing name. "Roark" carries all the esthetic weight and that's why Rand used it. It also points out that these two characters were not ever depicted as really being in love with each other, not even to the extent Roark and Wynand had love for each other. The Dominique character is so twisted out of shape to make her fit into the story-line as to make her unrecognizable as a human being, frankly, as contrasted to Roark who is merely incomplete or undeveloped. Wynand is the most developed, well rounded, believable major character qua Rand heroic in her two great novels.

I couldn't agree more. Wynand should have been the main character of The Fountainhead. Roark is dull, Galt even more so.

Psychologically the logical choice all considered is for Roark and Wynand to go to bed with each other, which would destroy the novel, of course, but the artificiality of the plot stops that the same way it twists Dominique out of human shape.

Speak for yourself. It's fan-fiction time! ^_^

I think what's going on is Rand loves both Wynand and Roark and that's the real love here, not between the two guys. Wynand and Roark go off on a cruise together, but Rand is also on board, alone with them. In this sense they are one person plus the author (in a good mood).

Huh... now that scene finally makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what's going on is Rand loves both Wynand and Roark and that's the real love here, not between the two guys. Wynand and Roark go off on a cruise together, but Rand is also on board, alone with them. In this sense they are one person plus the author (in a good mood).

Huh... now that scene finally makes sense.

Dollhead,

I agree. It finally makes sense to me, too.

And I probably would not have thought of it if you had not said that.

Thank you.

(I would thank Brant, too, but then he gets complicated... :smile: )

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I would thank Brant, too, but then he gets complicated... :smile: )

Michael

Indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an interesting old letter, occasionally tongue in cheek but informative.

Peter

From: Sam Lord <samjlord@yahoo.com>

To: objectivism@wetheliving.com

Subject: OWL: Two Camps

Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 18:56:47 -0800 (PST)

Hi all-

I've divided this post into three sections:

I. Foutainheadists vs. Atlas Shruggers

II. Are they human or not? (Response to Matt)

III. Response to Paul

-----------

I. Foutainheadists vs. Atlas Shruggers

I'm sure we've all recognized the two divisions of objectivist thought on the internet (ARI vs. TOC), but I've identified another fundamental split while discussing things like rights with other objectivists. I'll call the two camps the "Fountainheadists" and the "Atlas Shruggers" after the novels that best characterize the respective views.

I categorize myself as a Fountainheadists, because I tend to focus on the spirit of the individual; theAtlas Shruggers, on the other hand, focus primarily on political and economic interpretations of Rand's works. [Alternatively, the two groups could be identified by the piece of Rand's nonfiction that best characterizes them: I would belong to the camp that depends on "Objectivist Ethics," while the other group associates more with "Man's Rights."]

As applied to rights, the Fountainheadists hold that rights are guides to maintain one's autonomy (i.e. to avoid living as a parasite off another's conscious effort). Conversely, the Atlas Shruggers define rights for their trade or reciprocal value, or view rights simply as a way to maintain a productive and hospitable society (and thus focus on the political-economic aspect of rights).

Of course, there is no strict division, simply a general trend I've noticed. Also, I did not intend my characterization (or name) or each group to be judging, simply descriptive. I don't have a solution to bridge the gap between these two groups, but recognizing a difference might be a good start.

That said, I have some responses to Matt Chamberlain

(11/9) and Paul Antonik Wakfer (11/10).

-----------

II. Are they human or not?

The first part of Matt's post is along the same lines as Paul's, so I will address that later. My biggest concern with Matt's post is his discussion of the "boarderline cases." In order to justify granting rights to non-rational humans, Matt claims that "'Rights' are a kind of principle that belong to a broad class of entities--humans." Later, Matt defines human: "[R]eason is characteristic of human beings."

Finally, Matt writes that "a specific human that lacks [a rational] faculty still belongs to the genus 'human.'"

Let's break down the arguments:

(Defn 1) Humans have a rational faculty.

(Conclusion 1) *All* humans have a rational faculty.

[Follows from D1]

(Premise 1) All rational beings have rights.

(Conclusion 2) Thus, all humans have rights.

This seems logically valid to me. The following is not, however:

(Premise 2) Some people do not have a rational faculty.

(Premise 3) Non-rational people are humans.

(Premise 4) Some humans do not have a rational faculty. [Follows from P2 and P3]

(Conclusion 3) Non-rational people have rights.

[Follows from C2 and P3]

Have I made an error here? (C1) and (P4) obviously contradict. So, either Matt's definition of human is too restrictive, or some people aren't humans and thus don't have rights. We must remember that every individual of a genus *must* meet the definition of that genus.

Furthermore, Matt's comparison of a non-rational person to a "slanted table" is incorrect. While "rational" and "non-rational" are mutually exclusive, "flat vs. slanted" is a false dichotomy: flat refers to the surface curvature while slanted refers to the orientation. A flat surface can be slanted (or horizontal or vertical). Thus, if a table is defined by flatness, a slanted table is a table (because it is still flat); however, a *spherical* table cannot exist by definition, because a sphere is not flat. To say that some spherical tables are still tables is

logically absurd. To claim that some rational beings are not rational is equally illogical.

-----------

III. Response to Paul

Now to respond to Paul's post. (Again, I hope this will address many of Matt's points, too.) Paul wrote: "But by what logical reasoning can you maintain that, as they are stated, these are directly unselfish and irrational acts? For example, *why* is it irrational and unselfish to act as a parasite on other humans?" Paul concludes that the only logical answer is reciprocalism. He does a terrific job representing the Atlas Shruggers; I hope to represent my side well, too.

To do so, I'll refer to another part of Paul's post: "[T]he rational purpose of any human is not autonomy (which again is secondary, not primary) but instead the purpose of maximum integrated lifetime happiness, which as far as is known is only consciously conceivable by human life-forms. Having autonomy is just one aspect of happiness and of the environmental requirements necessary to allow one to effectively pursue that purpose."

Now come on. We're not hedonist, here. Paul is correct that happiness is the purpose of ethics, but *life* is the standard of value (and thus the standard of happiness). Because autonomy is required for human survival, autonomy must also be required for human happiness. If one's own life is his or her highest value, than he or she must value the means to that life. One's ability to produce one's own means of survival is essential to life, and one's autonomy is essential to production; therefore, autonomy is essential for life and is thus one of the highest values to the rationally self-interested.

[Note: Of course, I do not mean that I should produce everything I use. On the contrary, living in a society allows me to offer to trade **the products of my labor** for the product of another's efforts; nevertheless, my means of survival remains my own production. When I live as a brute or a parasite, I chose not to produce, but instead to *take*.]

In a private correspondence, Paul suggested that I opt for a word other than "right" to describe the moral guide I speak of (because the word has too many connotations with traditional--and Atlas Shruggist--conceptions of rights). I have considered this. Maybe I should refer to them as "oughts" instead of rights? "I have an ought to live as a human, not as a brute." What do you think?

-----------

Sorry for the long email, but OWL guidelines don't let me split this post up and post them the same day. Maybe that is to encourage me to write less. ;) I'll be interested to hear comments.

-Sam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I would thank Brant, too, but then he gets complicated... :smile: )

Michael

Indeed.

As long as you don't call me "Simplicio."

--Brant

as if I had the slightest idea what you're talking about (rage is building in my building; the top may blow off!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

--Brant

as if I had the slightest idea what you're talking about (rage is building in my building; the top may blow off!)

That is what got Galileo's ass in a sling. He called the Pope Simplicio.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are two short letters concerning Ludwig von Duck and Rand. Can anyone explain why Ayn was thrilled?

Peter

From: "Michael Miller" <mposts@email.com>

To: objectivism@wetheliving.com

Subject: OWL: Ludwig von Mises on Rand qua man

Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 14:14:13 -0500

I need to correct my Jul 28 02 final post on the gender-inclusive issue. I tried to close that post with the most pertinent set of words ever uttered by Rand on the subject, and I know now that I failed.

Yesterday, deep in the stacks at the Google U. library, I stumbled on this infinitely superior anecdote:

Quote:

Hazlitt relates that he was walking with Rand one day, and told her that Mises had told him, "Ayn Rand is one of the greatest men in history." "Did he say 'men'?" asked Rand. "Yes," Hazlitt responded. At which point Rand clapped her hands in glee.

end quote.

"Ayn Rand and the Libertarian Movement: Part II" by Roy A. Childs, Jr. available at:

http://www.dailyobject ivist.com/Connect/randandlibertarian

s2.asp

Michael

From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com>

To: objectivism@wetheliving.com

Subject: OWL: Ludwig von Mises on Rand qua man

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 10:51:50 -0700

On 8/8/02 Michael Miller wrote:

> Hazlitt relates that he was walking with Rand one day, and told her that Mises had told him, "Ayn Rand is one of the greatest men in history."

On 10 Aug 2002 Sarah Lawrence wrote:

> Could it be that Mises was, at the time he said that, under the impression that Rand was in fact a man?

Unlikely.

Here follows a little lesson on English/German etymology and usage, that you will not encounter in universities, but you will encounter in Oxford English Dictionary.

It is common and idiomatic to refer to use the word "men" to refer to people whose gender is unknown or irrelevant.

However it is today unusual and unidiomatic among native English speakers to use the word "men" to refer to a subject whose gender is known and female, as Mises did. Mises, however, is a native German speaker. In modern German, and in the root language from which modern English and modern German descend, and in old English, it is and was common to use the word "man" or "men" to refer to an individual whose gender is known to be female, but is irrelevant or unimportant.

Mises' use of the word "men" was correct, but unidiomatic in native English, but the word "men" exists both in his native language, and in the root language, and his use was correct and idiomatic in his native tongue, though not in the tongue in which he was mentally translating his thoughts to.

It would be natural to say "Ayn Rand is one of the greatest men in history." in German, and correct, but no longer idiomatic, in English, so probably the correct but odd phrasing is a consequence of mental translation.

Which brings me back to my old hobbyhorse. That this attempt to change the English language would cut us off from our history if it succeeded, and is doomed to fail, because you are up against the King James Bible.

--digsig

James A. Donald

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

The Dominique character is so twisted out of shape to make her fit into the story-line as to make her unrecognizable as a human being, frankly, as contrasted to Roark who is merely incomplete or undeveloped.

I had a hard time believing how someone like Roark can love a woman like Dominique. Aside from being a twisted, misguided idealist, I don't understand what was the quality in her which can possibly make a man like Roark love her

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Dominique character is so twisted out of shape to make her fit into the story-line as to make her unrecognizable as a human being, frankly, as contrasted to Roark who is merely incomplete or undeveloped.

I had a hard time believing how someone like Roark can love a woman like Dominique. Aside from being a twisted, misguided idealist, I don't understand what was the quality in her which can possibly make a man like Roark love her

Okay. What kind of man do you think Roark is?

Roark was created to have sex with the author who was Dominique "in a bad mood." Rand called this her "wishfull thinking."

You might better think of the novel in terms of author-characters interactions (real-artificial) just as the novel can be more broadly seen is an interaction with and a commentary on the broader culture. This novel is social. The next novel is mostly intellectual: philosophical, political and moral plus economics. Both novels are alternate realities and not realities only unto themselves but as contrasting realities (artificial to real and real to artificial).

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to OL Alex:

Are you considered an authority on Ayn's works?

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a hard time believing how someone like Roark can love a woman like Dominique. Aside from being a twisted, misguided idealist, I don't understand what was the quality in her which can possibly make a man like Roark love her

You've been in love? Deep (never quit no matter what) love of an extremely complex, difficult woman?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wolf wrote: You've been in love? Deep (never quit no matter what) love of an extremely complex, difficult woman?
end quote

Maybe when you are sixteen. Maybe if she keeps dark secrets and later springs them on you. Maybe if you “sorta” force yourself on her after she says, “No no no” but then she says “Yes yes yes” and climaxes? Does that make it not “sorta rape”? I had a lot of trouble with Dommie as a character even at an early age and even more of a problem now in my old age. However, I did not think Roark needed to be forgiven for anything. Is that un-PC sexist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a hard time believing how someone like Roark can love a woman like Dominique. Aside from being a twisted, misguided idealist, I don't understand what was the quality in her which can possibly make a man like Roark love her

Alexander,

It goes even deeper. But I think Nathaniel Branden nailed it (I forget where). He said he once asked her why her heroines ran through several men, but never the contrary. She said (I paraphrase since I am going on memory): "This is my fantasy, dahling, not yours."

:)

That always rang true to me. If she saw herself as Dominique and got in fantasy mode, why Roark would have to love her. He was the perfect man, her knight in shining armour. The reason stops there. (I'm not being facetious here, I'm serious.)

Hollywood, where Rand cut her teeth, is made of such things.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a hard time believing how someone like Roark can love a woman like Dominique. Aside from being a twisted, misguided idealist, I don't understand what was the quality in her which can possibly make a man like Roark love her

Alexander,

It goes even deeper. But I think Nathaniel Branden nailed it (I forget where). He said he once asked her why her heroines ran through several men, but never the contrary. She said (I paraphrase since I am going on memory): "This is my fantasy, dahling, not yours."

:smile:

That always rang true to me. If she saw herself as Dominique and got in fantasy mode, why Roark would have to love her. He was the perfect man, her knight in shining armour. The reason stops there. (I'm not being facetious here, I'm serious.)

Hollywood, where Rand cut her teeth, is made of such things.

Michael

Agreed.

Anyone who has loved a person [save all the alphabet soup PC crap], completely, and thinks that the entire experience is supposed to be completely rational is a fool.

Ayn was no fool.

However, she did, to me, provide me with a blueprint to sort all my feelings through.

So, and I remember George making this point when I was getting used to OL, that we have sex for non-rational reasons.

I fall in lust every day...love...that is special and built on rational values with a whole bunch of lust as the sauce that makes it a gourmet meal.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha. i just remembered I started this old thread. I made a couple of great points then Stephen almost blew me out of the water, but I hung in there enough to survive even to the extent that some banned poster from Illinois made a great complimentary point about something finally making sense to her. (I wonder if she knows ilstar. He came here a year ago November and she was kicked out the previous July.)

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember George making this point when I was getting used to OL, that we have sex for non-rational reasons

Without asking to litigate it, that's another reason I seldom agree with George.

There are rational reasons to have sex for irrational non-rational reasons.

--Brant

rational*

*Rand wanted "RATIONAL" engraved on her tombstone, but she changed her mind or was ignored

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We seldom get what we want in life or in death.

I can't speak for death yet, however, I have gotten an abundance from life...guess you need to "know what you want."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We seldom get what we want in life or in death.

I can't speak for death yet, however, I have gotten an abundance from life...guess you need to "know what you want."

I see that I have made an error of logic, reasoning from the particular to a universal. I never wanted to be who I am. I wanted to be taller, stronger, and a whole lot smarter. I wrongly assumed it was true of all men, that we're not the men we would have preferred to be. Sorry about that. I should pay more attention to formal logic. Poets are forgetful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now