Keys to Success

[Xray]

> " Work within institutions or crafts, not outside them. For a time, our culture celebrated the rebel and the outsider. The most miserable of my correspondents ...were forever in revolt against the world and ended up sourly achieving little." [David Brooks]

One reason so many Objectivism-influened types resist this pretty obvious good advice (and come up with the silly idea that it is the same as being a Keating or social metaphysics or abandoning one's principles to be accepted) is that they had to use Objectivism, the model of Roark's stubborn lonerism, the man against the majority role models to help them in a long personal struggle to assert their own independence and integrity against social pressure.

And so the advice to 'get social', find allies, get in good with them sounds to them like a betrayal or abandonment of a source of hard-won pride for them. It isn't the same, if you stop and think about it but it -sounds like- what they had to fight very hard not to succumb to. Or to get out of.

Nathaniel Branden comments on this issue in the 'Encouraging Repression' section of his article The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand:

http://nathanielbranden.com/ayn/ayn03.html

[Nathaniel Branden]: In preparation for this presentation, I re-read the opening chapter of The Fountainhead. It really is a great book. I noticed something in the first chapter I never noticed before. Consider these facts: The hero has just been expelled from school, he is the victim of injustice, he is misunderstood by virtually everyone, and he himself tends to find other people puzzling and incomprehensible. He is alone; he has no friends. There is no one with whom he can share his inner life or values. So far, with the possible exception of being expelled from school, this could be a fairly accurate description of the state of the overwhelming majority of adolescents. There is one big difference: Howard Roark gives no indication of being bothered by any of it. He is serenely happy within himself. For average teenagers, this condition is agony. They read The Fountainhead and see this condition, not as a problem to be solved, but as a condition they must learn to be happy about — as Roark is. All done without drugs! What a wish-fulfillment that would be! What a dream come true! Don't bother learning to understand anyone. Don't bother working at making yourself better understood. Don't try to see whether you can close the gap of your alienation from others, at least from some others, just struggle for Roark's serenity — which Rand never tells you how to achieve. This is an example of how The Fountainhead could be at once a source of great inspiration and a source of great guilt, for all those who do not know how to reach Roark's state.

I personally don't think reaching Roark's state is in any way desirable. All his creativity does not make up for his being totally devoid of empathy.

[Philip Coates]

> I personally don't think reaching Roark's state is in any way desirable.

Neither do I. Although, I'd disagree with your statement that he lacks empathy, I've always found his "stoicism" to be wooden. And psychologically inappropriate. The fictional role model who is better at the emotional/introspective dimensions of rationality that Branden lists - and the one worthy of emulation - is Francisco.

[Philip Coates]

( I was sort of surprised the first time I heard there were people so literal-minded trying to model themselves after Roark, even adopting his repression. I still wonder if it was that widespread. Maybe NB saw them all the time, but I a decade or so after NBI, certainly didn't meet many randroids or roarkdroids in any pure sense. Just seems like commonsense that you separate the fictional character's "stylized" personality from some of his strengths. And as for being shattered because Rand yelled at you or denigrated your literary choices?....give me a break.)

[Xray]

I personally don't think reaching Roark's state is in any way desirable.

Neither do I. Although, I'd disagree with your statement that he lacks empathy, I've always found his "stoicism" to be wooden.

Where do you think Roark showed empathy?

[Brant Gaede]

I personally don't think reaching Roark's state is in any way desirable.

Neither do I. Although, I'd disagree with your statement that he lacks empathy, I've always found his "stoicism" to be wooden.

Where do you think Roark showed empathy?

When he met Mallory. His last meeting with Wynand. His encounter with the boy on the bicycle. When he let Dominique participate in blowing up the housing project. When he knew Dominique wanted to be "raped*". His relationships with Cameron and Wynand. Some of his clients. Etc.

--Brant

*I know, I know--you don't do to someone sexually what he did; there's too much of a possibility of really harming someone--but that would relate to Rand's lack of empathy--or knowledge--here, not his--in fact Dominique was damaged in that she dragged herself to the bathroom and lay there until morning: one of two big reasons you don't make the movie today--the other blowing up a big building, Mr. terrorist!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Add his constant help of Peter Keating all those years.

A modern-day Randroid would have snarked at Keating from the start, not helped him.

Roark even looked at Keating's paintings at the end where he felt pity, although it did make him sick.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Add his constant help of Peter Keating all those years.

A modern-day Randroid would have snarked at Keating from the start, not helped him.

Roark even looked at Keating's paintings at the end where he felt pity, although it did make him sick.

Michael

With Keating there was empathy, but in fixing his work it was more empathy toward a future building he was saving. And, BTW, Rand had to set up the novel somewhat arbitrarily to make it work the way she wanted with some economy of means. For instance, Roark boarding in Mrs. Keating's house. How could he stand it? It was the same with his character: No way, unless there was something really wrong with him upstairs, could he have walked naked without concern through town. There is individualism and there's too much atomistic individualism. She was interested in setting up contrasting extremes, and she sure did.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

Lots, of nice detail, Brant and MSK. I had forgotten most of the details.

[9thdoctor]

His last meeting with Wynand.

Even better is the part when Wynand talks about his run in with a stevedore and then a bar owner.

[Xray]

When he [Roark] let Dominique participate in blowing up the housing project. When he knew Dominique wanted to be "raped*".

Roark realized what made Dominique tick, but I would not call this empathy. As for blowing up the building - this is in itself an unempathetic act: Roark does not give a thought to all those who worked hard to get it finished. Instead he feels entitled to do as he pleases.

As for Roark 'helping' Keating - to me it looks more like a necessary plot device than a manifestation of the hero's empathy:

The poorly performing second-hander Keating is the despicable character against whom Roark's creative genius can stand out in bold relief. So when Roark is 'helping' Keating by looking at his deficient drafts, and then altering them by a few ingenious strokes with his pencil, the reader is taken in by the hero's sheer creativity, which makes the 'scenario of helping' an ancillary means to an end: providing the reader with a performance showing the hero's genius.

[anthony]

Jeez.

Further attempts to turn a fine novel into Mills & Boone sentimental gush.

The re-write squad could do good work for the sake of sensitive humanity.

Imagine :

"We the Giving"

"Atlas Hugged"

"The Fount, Now Shared"

All palatably politically-corrected, empathy-adjusted.

Then there's that standby essay, quoted here every third week:

"The Benefits (ignored) and Hazarded Guesses (made) of Ayn Rand's Philosophy".

Save me, dear lord.

[Xray]

Jeez.

Further attempts to turn a fine novel into Mills & Boone sentimental gush.

The re-write squad could do good work for the sake of sensitive humanity.

Imagine :

"We the Giving"

"Atlas Hugged"

"The Fount, Now Shared"

All palatably politically-corrected, empathy-adjusted.

Then there's that standby essay, quoted here every third week:

"The Benefits (ignored) and Hazarded Guesses (made) of Ayn Rand's Philosophy".

Save me, dear lord.

Witty puns, Tony.

But hold onto your hat: The "We the giving" thing may actually boost the givers' immune systems:

http://www.telegraph...good-karma.html

The article also points out that giving is contagious:

“Giving is also contagious,” says Hamilton. “It elevates people and inspires them. They process the kind act over and over again and because kindness is occupying their mind, they are more likely to do it for someone else. You end up with a ripple effect.”

Brain researchers have also found out that in acts of giving, the giver is even happier than the receiver.

While both giver and receiver produce the 'happiness hormone' dopamine, the giver additionally produces oxytocin (often called the 'cuddle hormone').

So the biblical 'It is more blessed to give than to receive." (Acts 20:35) may be confirmed by present-day research.

(I hasten to add that the brain research probably only examined acts of voluntary giving.

For I can't imagine getting any positive oxytocine rush in my brain on seeing my hard-earned, unvoluntarily-given taxpayer euros being engulfed in the abyss of debt that Greece has produced ... )

[9thdoctor]

(I hasten to add that the brain research probably only examined acts of voluntary giving.

For I can't imagine getting any positive oxytocine rush in my brain on seeing my hard-earned, unvoluntarily-given taxpayer euros being engulfed in the abyss of debt that Greece has produced ... )

Humorist Dave Barry still does his year end round up, and this made me think of a line from it:

In Europe, the economic crisis continues to worsen, especially in Greece, which has been operating under a financial model in which the government spends approximately $150 billion a year while taking in revenues totaling $336.50 from the lone Greek taxpayer, an Athens businessman who plans to retire in April. Greece has been making up the shortfall by charging everything to a MasterCard account that the Greek government applied for — in what some critics consider a questionable financial practice — using the name “Germany.”

http://www.miamihera...-in-review.html

[Selene]

Jeez.

Further attempts to turn a fine novel into Mills & Boone sentimental gush.

The re-write squad could do good work for the sake of sensitive humanity.

Imagine :

"We the Giving"

"Atlas Hugged"

"The Fount, Now Shared"

All palatably politically-corrected, empathy-adjusted.

Then there's that standby essay, quoted here every third week:

"The Benefits (ignored) and Hazarded Guesses (made) of Ayn Rand's Philosophy".

Save me, dear lord.

But hold onto your hat: The "We the giving" thing may actually boost the givers' immune systems:

http://www.telegraph...good-karma.html

The article also points out that giving is contagious:

Angela:

I just love when folks cite "studies" like this.

“When you do something for someone else, your brain produces hormones,” says Dr David Hamilton, author of

Why Kindness is Good for You

.

“Dopamine – which makes you feel happy, and gives you the feeling that what you are doing is right – and opiates, the body’s own secret stash of heroin and morphine.”

So, giving is beneficial for both the giver and the receiver. A wealth of research supports the theory that giving makes you happy. When researchers gave two groups some money, telling the first to spend it on themselves, the second to buy a gift for someone else, the first group experienced momentary pleasure, but no long lasting satisfaction.

Scientifically, "Seratonin and dopamine are both endorphins. Endorphins are psychoactive chemicals released by the brain in response to certain stimuli. All drugs considered to be psychoactive drugs; illegal as well as prescribed cause the release of endorphins that effect brain chemistry."

For example, "if you smoke a hit of marijuana that will almost instantly trigger the release of large quantities of seratonin in the brain, but also smaller quantities of dopamine and other endorphins (there are dozens of endorphins that the brain can release based on the stimuli)."

Additionally, in D/s, being spanked and other techniques release waves of endorphins.

So, we can then conclude that you can be equally happy smoking a joint, or being spanked as giving a gift?

Adam

pensively persuasive

[Brant Gaede]

When he [Roark] let Dominique participate in blowing up the housing project. When he knew Dominique wanted to be "raped*".

Roark realized what made Dominique tick, but I would not call this empathy. As for blowing up the building - this is in itself an unempathetic act: Roark does not give a thought to all those who worked hard to get it finished. Instead he feels entitled to do as he pleases.

As for Roark 'helping' Keating - to me it looks more like a necessary plot device than a manifestation of the hero's empathy:

The poorly performing second-hander Keating is the despicable character against whom Roark's creative genius can stand out in bold relief. So when Roark is 'helping' Keating by looking at his deficient drafts, and then altering them by a few ingenious strokes with his pencil, the reader is taken in by the hero's sheer creativity, which makes the 'scenario of helping' an ancillary means to an end: providing the reader with a performance showing the hero's genius.

Your last paragraph implies you are addressing instead of ignoring what I said previously. You only answer me in your first paragraph. Blowing up the housing project was a matter of justice not so well rendered as such by Rand except it was brilliant esthetically. Nothing to do with empathy except lack of it by society to its Roarks. Those who worked on the job got paid and went on to other things, like the rebuilding that project the right way. Thus they get paid twice plus all those nice feelings you seem to think are so important. Well, very important to children--I'd grant you that--but they aren't children. They're toughened up adults who learned somthing about justice and pride in work.

--Brant

Rand complained she felt like she was living in a world of children--BOY!, was she ever right; today's world would completely freak her out, except the Ayn Rand Institute would freak her out even more--almost as badly as having Peikoff sticking his Introduction into her magnum opus

[Xray]

Roark realized what made Dominique tick, but I would not call this empathy. As for blowing up the building - this is in itself an unempathetic act: Roark does not give a thought to all those who worked hard to get it finished. Instead he feels entitled to do as he pleases.

As for Roark 'helping' Keating - to me it looks more like a necessary plot device than a manifestation of the hero's empathy:

The poorly performing second-hander Keating is the despicable character against whom Roark's creative genius can stand out in bold relief. So when Roark is 'helping' Keating by looking at his deficient drafts, and then altering them by a few ingenious strokes with his pencil, the reader is taken in by the hero's sheer creativity, which makes the 'scenario of helping' an ancillary means to an end: providing the reader with a performance showing the hero's genius.

Your last paragraph implies you are addressing instead of ignoring what I said previously. You only answer me in your first paragraph.

The second paragraph was in reply to MSK's # 31 post; I'm going to insert a quote to make it clearer.

[Xray]

Angela:

I just love when folks cite "studies" like this.

“When you do something for someone else, your brain produces hormones,” says Dr David Hamilton, author of

Why Kindness is Good for You

.

“Dopamine – which makes you feel happy, and gives you the feeling that what you are doing is right – and opiates, the body’s own secret stash of heroin and morphine.”

So, giving is beneficial for both the giver and the receiver. A wealth of research supports the theory that giving makes you happy. When researchers gave two groups some money, telling the first to spend it on themselves, the second to buy a gift for someone else, the first group experienced momentary pleasure, but no long lasting satisfaction.

Scientifically, "Seratonin and dopamine are both endorphins. Endorphins are psychoactive chemicals released by the brain in response to certain stimuli. All drugs considered to be psychoactive drugs; illegal as well as prescribed cause the release of endorphins that effect brain chemistry."

For example, "if you smoke a hit of marijuana that will almost instantly trigger the release of large quantities of seratonin in the brain, but also smaller quantities of dopamine and other endorphins (there are dozens of endorphins that the brain can release based on the stimuli)."

Additionally, in D/s, being spanked and other techniques release waves of endorphins.

So, we can then conclude that you can be equally happy smoking a joint, or being spanked as giving a gift?

Adam

pensively persuasive

Adam,

It looks like there's more to giving than a short rush of 'helper's high':

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/health/cancer-research-uk/8792392/Charity-giving-and-good-karma.html

So, giving is beneficial for both the giver and the receiver. A wealth of research supports the theory that giving makes you happy. When researchers gave two groups some money, telling the first to spend it on themselves, the second to buy a gift for someone else, the first group experienced momentary pleasure, but no long lasting satisfaction.

The second group, on the other hand, returned at the end of the day with their happiness levels still high.

“And the more regularly you give, the more that happiness becomes sustainable,” says Hamilton. Those who do charity work have supported the emotional benefits of giving too, showing lower levels of depression, and higher levels of self-esteem. It’s also good for your relationships. Kind acts bond two people, in fact, it’s within our genetics – we are wired to appreciate kindness.

But the benefits of giving go beyond the emotional. “The act of doing something for another person in any capacity has health benefits,” says Hamilton. Performing acts of kindness has been found to boost your immune system, keep your heart healthy and even slow the ageing process.

[Xray]

[Correction of my # 35 post: quote added from MSK's # 31 post]

When he [Roark] let Dominique participate in blowing up the housing project. When he knew Dominique wanted to be "raped*".

Roark realized what made Dominique tick, but I would not call this empathy. As for blowing up the building - this is in itself an unempathetic act: Roark does not give a thought to all those who worked hard to get it finished. Instead he feels entitled to do as he pleases.

Add his constant help of Peter Keating all those years.

A modern-day Randroid would have snarked at Keating from the start, not helped him.

Roark even looked at Keating's paintings at the end where he felt pity, although it did make him sick.

Michael

As for Roark 'helping' Keating - to me it looks more like a necessary plot device than a manifestation of the hero's empathy:

The poorly performing second-hander Keating is the despicable character against whom Roark's creative genius can stand out in bold relief. So when Roark is 'helping' Keating by looking at his deficient drafts, and then altering them by a few ingenious strokes with his pencil, the reader is taken in by the hero's sheer creativity, which makes the 'scenario of helping' an ancillary means to an end: providing the reader with a performance showing the hero's genius.

[Brant Gaede]

[Correction of my # 35 post: quote added from MSK's # 31 post]

When he [Roark] let Dominique participate in blowing up the housing project. When he knew Dominique wanted to be "raped*".

Roark realized what made Dominique tick, but I would not call this empathy. As for blowing up the building - this is in itself an unempathetic act: Roark does not give a thought to all those who worked hard to get it finished. Instead he feels entitled to do as he pleases.

Add his constant help of Peter Keating all those years.

A modern-day Randroid would have snarked at Keating from the start, not helped him.

Roark even looked at Keating's paintings at the end where he felt pity, although it did make him sick.

Michael

As for Roark 'helping' Keating - to me it looks more like a necessary plot device than a manifestation of the hero's empathy:

The poorly performing second-hander Keating is the despicable character against whom Roark's creative genius can stand out in bold relief. So when Roark is 'helping' Keating by looking at his deficient drafts, and then altering them by a few ingenious strokes with his pencil, the reader is taken in by the hero's sheer creativity, which makes the 'scenario of helping' an ancillary means to an end: providing the reader with a performance showing the hero's genius.

In that case blowing up the housing project was a "plot device" rather than a manifestation of his lack of empathy.

--Brant

[caroljane]

I'd guess people who bemoan their lack of success see no prospects for success going forward because of age or illness or depression or other such.

--Brant

"Margaret Mitchell: Using introspection, would you please tell the audience why you haven't had much success since 'Gone with the Wind'?--and you, Ayn Rand, it's been quite a comedown in the fiction business for you too, since 'Atlas Shrugged'--why is that?--and you didn't think I'd let you off the hook, did you, Albert Einstein?"

Not achieving your aspirations is depressing, but achieving them can be worse.

Margaret, Ayn & Al

[Selene]

I'd guess people who bemoan their lack of success see no prospects for success going forward because of age or illness or depression or other such.

--Brant

"Margaret Mitchell: Using introspection, would you please tell the audience why you haven't had much success since 'Gone with the Wind'?--and you, Ayn Rand, it's been quite a comedown in the fiction business for you too, since 'Atlas Shrugged'--why is that?--and you didn't think I'd let you off the hook, did you, Albert Einstein?"

Not achieving your aspirations is depressing, but achieving them can be worse.

Margaret, Ayn & Al

OK Carol:

Apparently you were finally able to hook up the two Dixie cups and the string that I sent you!

[caroljane]

I'd guess people who bemoan their lack of success see no prospects for success going forward because of age or illness or depression or other such.

--Brant

"Margaret Mitchell: Using introspection, would you please tell the audience why you haven't had much success since 'Gone with the Wind'?--and you, Ayn Rand, it's been quite a comedown in the fiction business for you too, since 'Atlas Shrugged'--why is that?--and you didn't think I'd let you off the hook, did you, Albert Einstein?"

Not achieving your aspirations is depressing, but achieving them can be worse.

Margaret, Ayn & Al

OK Carol:

Apparently you were finally able to hook up the two Dixie cups and the string that I sent you!

Yes thanks - they're not very practical winterwear though.

[Xray]

As for Roark 'helping' Keating - to me it looks more like a necessary plot device than a manifestation of the hero's empathy:

The poorly performing second-hander Keating is the despicable character against whom Roark's creative genius can stand out in bold relief. So when Roark is 'helping' Keating by looking at his deficient drafts, and then altering them by a few ingenious strokes with his pencil, the reader is taken in by the hero's sheer creativity, which makes the 'scenario of helping' an ancillary means to an end: providing the reader with a performance showing the hero's genius.

In that case blowing up the housing project was a "plot device" rather than a manifestation of his lack of empathy.

--Brant

No doubt blowing up the housing project was a coup de théâtre. As for the act manifesting Roark's lack of empathy - it would interest me whether Rand has ever been interviewed in detail about this scene, and been asked whether she would endorse such an act in real life as well.

[Philip Coates]

Part of the non-thoughtful decline of this list is all the lazy, "twitter"-like, one-liner, half-assed humorous posts --- including this one.

[caroljane]

Part of the non-thoughtful decline of this list is all the lazy, "twitter"-like, one-liner, half-assed humorous posts --- including this one.

Excuse me Phil, my one-liner was in fact profound and resonant of the paradoxical nature of the Maslovian hierarchy of needs. I will concede that it was lazy but so am I.

Carol

Here for a good time, not for a hard time.