Is Being Self-Interested the Same as Being Egoistic?

[Michelle]

Well, a philosophy is a system of propositions dealing with the nature of existence. So there can't be philosophy which exists in the noumena. A proposition is a thing created by a conscious mind. A book of philosophy is merely a number of wood fibers which have ink on them and are glued together. The ink is arranged in the form of language symbols in order to convey meanings. Outside of a conscious mind which can comprehend the language-symbols, what is a book but a mishmash of wood, glue, and ink?

[Brant Gaede]

Well, a philosophy is a system of propositions dealing with the nature of existence. So there can't be philosophy which exists in the noumena. A proposition is a thing created by a conscious mind. A book of philosophy is merely a number of wood fibers which have ink on them and are glued together. The ink is arranged in the form of language symbols in order to convey meanings. Outside of a conscious mind which can comprehend the language-symbols, what is a book but a mishmash of wood, glue, and ink?

I believe a book is not even that, according to Xray. However, Leonard Peikoff, knowing the end of civilization is near, wants, if it comes to that, to deposit Ayn Rand's collected works in various caves throughout the world to be available to help the return of civilization.

--Brant

Edited June 4, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Michelle]

Well, a philosophy is a system of propositions dealing with the nature of existence. So there can't be philosophy which exists in the noumena. A proposition is a thing created by a conscious mind. A book of philosophy is merely a number of wood fibers which have ink on them and are glued together. The ink is arranged in the form of language symbols in order to convey meanings. Outside of a conscious mind which can comprehend the language-symbols, what is a book but a mishmash of wood, glue, and ink?

I believe a book is not even that, according to Xray. However, Leonard Peikoff, knowing the end of civilization is near, wants, if it comes to that, to deposit Ayn Rand's collected works in various caves throughout the world to be available to help the return of civilization.

--Brant

What a joke.

Does he honestly think that if a lot of savages in a future wasteland discovered the writings of Ayn Rand, they'd return to a civilized culture?

First, this would be assuming the English language would survive such a catastrophe.

Second, this would be assuming the books weren't destroyed. It'd be much smarter to build fallout shelters or something and put them in those.

Third, knowledge is contextual. If the cultural context of Western civilization survived, the savages would probably not be savages and wouldn't require Ayn Rand's writings to return to a civilized state. If Western civilization is completely destroyed, then even if English somehow did manage to survive as a language, talk of capitalism and property rights would likely be unintelligible to savages with no concept of either.

Fourth, granting even that English survived, the books weren't destroyed, and the savages understood what Rand was talking about, they'd probably just turn Rand's writings into holy scripture and Rand herself into a God (even in more extreme a fashion than some Objectivists do today). They'd just build totems in the shape of Rand and create absurd creation myths about Rand.

[Selene]

Well, a philosophy is a system of propositions dealing with the nature of existence. So there can't be philosophy which exists in the noumena. A proposition is a thing created by a conscious mind. A book of philosophy is merely a number of wood fibers which have ink on them and are glued together. The ink is arranged in the form of language symbols in order to convey meanings. Outside of a conscious mind which can comprehend the language-symbols, what is a book but a mishmash of wood, glue, and ink?

I believe a book is not even that, according to Xray. However, Leonard Peikoff, knowing the end of civilization is near, wants, if it comes to that, to deposit Ayn Rand's collected works in various caves throughout the world to be available to help the return of civilization.

--Brant

What a joke.

Does he honestly think that if a lot of savages in a future wasteland discovered the writings of Ayn Rand, they'd return to a civilized culture?

First, this would be assuming the English language would survive such a catastrophe.

Second, this would be assuming the books weren't destroyed. It'd be much smarter to build fallout shelters or something and put them in those.

Third, knowledge is contextual. If the cultural context of Western civilization survived, the savages would probably not be savages and wouldn't require Ayn Rand's writings to return to a civilized state. If Western civilization is completely destroyed, then even if English somehow did manage to survive as a language, talk of capitalism and property rights would likely be unintelligible to savages with no concept of either.

Fourth, granting even that English survived, the books weren't destroyed, and the savages understood what Rand was talking about, they'd probably just turn Rand's writings into holy scripture and Rand herself into a God (even in more extreme a fashion than some Objectivists do today). They'd just build totems in the shape of Rand and create absurd creation myths about Rand.

Peikoff is the incredibly stupid and naive President Mervin (<?) in Dr. Strangelove!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV4PikvIAwk

Peter Sellers is a genius in this movie. Unfortunately it worked against Goldwater in 1964 along with the infamous Goebbels "Daisy Ad".

The amazingly funny aspect of the one scene with the arm is that it was an arm grafted to him from a Holocaust victim's body and it is constantly trying to kill him.

Also, the George C. Scott - "Mr. President, we cannot afford a mine shaft gap!

And of course, xray favorite part - "Mien Fuhrer...I can walk!"

Adam

[Xray]

I have asked several questions here to which a clear "yes" or "no" answer plus elaborations would suffice to make significant headway for both of us in the discussion.

For example: What is your definiton of "truth"?

There is a big difference between asking for a definition and asking what a person means by a word. We could agree on what 'table' means and yet disagree on whether or not the object in question fits the definition. It's relatively easy to agree on definitions but communicating is a whole other story that involves non-verbal understanding. Do you know what I mean??

Person A asking discussion partner person B to offer his definition of a word is a first step required to make sure whether A and B can agree on the basics, are on the same page, so to speak.

Example: "Truth is the identification of a fact of reality". (Rand)

The questions to ask are:

Agree?

If disagree, why?

If there is no common agreement on the basic definition, any further discussion becomes pointless.

Edited June 4, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Peikoff is the incredibly stupid and naive President Mervin (<?) in Dr. Strangelove!

Is Peikoff Rand's personally selected heir to her estate?

Edited June 4, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Let's focus xray.

Asked and answered.

Next question.

[Xray]

Let's focus xray.

Asked and answered.

Next question.

If you would please tie your replies to specific posts by quoting the passages you are commenting on. TIA. Edited June 4, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

No.

[Michelle]

I tend to think O'Reilly is something of a bully, but when he made the Dr. Strangelove crack to Peikoff in that interview, I burst out laughing. Very nice.

[Xray]

Well, a philosophy is a system of propositions dealing with the nature of existence. So there can't be philosophy which exists in the noumena. A proposition is a thing created by a conscious mind. A book of philosophy is merely a number of wood fibers which have ink on them and are glued together. The ink is arranged in the form of language symbols in order to convey meanings. Outside of a conscious mind which can comprehend the language-symbols, what is a book but a mishmash of wood, glue, and ink?

A book of philosophy is the result of a conscious mind's thoughts put in writing, meant for other conscsious minds to read.

[Brant]:

I didn't say that, but the book of philosophy is "out there." The author may be dead or not. From one mind to another via a book.

From one subjective mind to another subjective mind, right?

Edited June 4, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Well, a philosophy is a system of propositions dealing with the nature of existence. So there can't be philosophy which exists in the noumena. A proposition is a thing created by a conscious mind. A book of philosophy is merely a number of wood fibers which have ink on them and are glued together. The ink is arranged in the form of language symbols in order to convey meanings. Outside of a conscious mind which can comprehend the language-symbols, what is a book but a mishmash of wood, glue, and ink?

A book of philosophy is the result of a conscious mind's thoughts put in writing, meant for other conscsious minds to read.

[Brant]:

I didn't say that, but the book of philosophy is "out there." The author may be dead or not. From one mind to another via a book.

From one subjective mind to another subjective mind, right?

Does a dog have a "subjective mind"?

I'd say in and out of an objective book. I don't care what you call the book-ends.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

Example: "Truth is the identification of a fact of reality". (Rand)

The questions to ask are:

Agree?

If disagree, why?

If there is no common agreement on the basic definition, any further discussion becomes pointless.

I don't think definitions are right or wrong - they just are. We can agree to use a particular definition but that doesn't make it right or wrong. This definition of 'truth' would not be very useful for me but it may mean a great deal to others.

[Xray]

Example: "Truth is the identification of a fact of reality". (Rand)

The questions to ask are:

Agree?

If disagree, why?

If there is no common agreement on the basic definition, any further discussion becomes pointless.

I don't think definitions are right or wrong - they just are. We can agree to use a particular definition but that doesn't make it right or wrong. This definition of 'truth' would not be very useful for me but it may mean a great deal to others.

Example of a definition:

Quote from Websters': "Electron - :an elementary particle consisting of a charge of negative

electricity equal to about 1.602 × 10-19 coulomb and having a mass when at

rest of about 9.109 × 10-31 kilogram or about 1?1836 that of a proton. (end quote)

"Multiple definitions" are not to be found in what is usually regarded as the technical area. No one claims multiple definitions of an electron,

proton, and a long list of other items.

What is the meaning of the term, "meaning"? Where, when and how does it connect to reality? When we say, the meaning of the term, electron is

"an elementary particle consisting of a charge of negative electricity equal toabout 1.602 × 10-19 coulomb and having a mass when at rest of about 9.109 ×

10-31 kilogram or about 1?1836 that of a proton", the term, meaning, is synonymous with objective definition (objective identity) of a finite existent. That's what it is. There is no subjective valuation attached to the term, meaning. The term simply denotes an entity. Would you say the term, meaning (word symbol) in this instance connects to reality?

How about another objective definition for electron? There can be endless connotations, but only one definition. If the objective existent, electron, can have but one definition, by what rationale can any other objective existent have more than one definition?

Can you think of an example?

[Leaving aside the special case of pure homophony and homography where words just happen to have the same pronunciation and spelling but are of different etymological origin, as e. g. in "rose" flower and "rose" (past tense of rise)]

As for Rand's definition of "truth" quoted above, why would it not be very useful for you?

Edited June 5, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

[Xray]:

A book of philosophy is the result of a conscious mind's thoughts put in writing, meant for other conscious minds to read.

[Brant]:

I didn't say that, but the book of philosophy is "out there." The author may be dead or not. From one mind to another via a book.

[Xray]:

From one subjective mind to another subjective mind, right?

Does a dog have a "subjective mind"?

The phrase "put in writing"and the term "read" logically implied that from the category of living beings having a subjective mind (which does involve dogs) it was referred to the subcategory of subjective minds possessing the ability to read and write (= humans).

Edited June 5, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

No.

And why would you refuse to do that?

[Selene]:Next question.

There's more than one.

The denotion/connotation issue is crucial in this epistemological discussion about Rand's ethical values, which she claims to be "objective".

"Denotation - 1: an act or process of denoting 2: meaning ; especially:

A direct specific meaning as distinct from an implied or associated idea.

(Webster's)

Q: Do you grasp "a specific meaning" apart from association?

"Connotation - 1 a: the suggesting of a meaning by a word apart from the

thing it explicitly names or describes b: something suggested by a word or

thing : implication

Example: "the connotations of comfort that surrounded that old

chair"" (ibid)

Q: Do you grasp "something suggested by the word?"

In the example, "the old chair" has a

specific, objective definition as determined by its set of characteristics.

(specific meaning);

"connotations of comfort" goes to a subjective value

judgement, an emotional response, a feeling; not a definition of the chair.

Here is the definition of electron - the denotation:

"Electron - :an elementary particle consisting of a charge of negative

electricity equal to about 1.602 × 10-19 coulomb and having a mass when at

rest of about 9.109 × 10-31 kilogram or about 1?1836 that of a proton

(Webster's)

Subjective connotations attached to the term "electron" are infinitiely variable, for example, it may trigger in people a positive or negative remembrance of their physics classes.

I will never forget my emotional reaction of first seeing the Andromeda galaxy with my bare eyes on a very clear starlit night many years ago. A small, whitish spot, barely visible but still discernible. I was so thrilled that it sent chills down my spine. To this day, whenever the term shows up, it is still connoted in with the feeling I had back then.

As for the term "great" discussed few posts back, does the word symbolize an entity, or a

relationship? The term, electron, does. What are the defining sets of characteristics of term, great? If the term, great, doesn't symbolize either

an entity, or a relationship, what is left but value judgement?

In other words, the denotation (definition) of the term, great, is that it is connotative only. It symbolizes a subjective, emotional response, not an

objective identity. Variable is in its definition as connotative only.

Q: Do you understand that an actual definition DIFFERENTIATES one entity, or one relationship, from other entities and other relationships?

Q: Would you say that the validity of invalidity of a use of a term or phrase is determined by whether it connects to reality, or fails to connect to

reality?

Believing that one's subjectively created values were objectively discovered indicates a mental mixing-up of denotation and connotation.

The fallacy lies in the failure to distinguish between "meaning" by connotation (infinitely variable feelings)

and "meaning" by denotation (non variable) as in the definition of an objective entity, or an objective relationship.

Nor does the consensus of opinion create reality. Back then, the consensus of opinion was that the earth was flat.

Ideological leaders and their followers may have a perfect consenus of opinion and a whole catalog of specific terms (just think of the term "original sin" in the Christian belief, or Nietzsche's "superman" as random examples) - but neither consensus of opinion nor a catalog of subjectively created terms determine truth by objective criteria.

The same goes for arbitrarily labeling someone as "rational". Those labels are mere subjective value judgements.

For example, the Objectivist man, to qualify as fully "rational", is only to be attracted to/fall in love with "a heroine". I'm not joking, but referring to a Rand disciple's (N. Branden's) elaborations on the subject (see "The Virtue of Selfishness", paperb. p. 77).

But isn't whether one prefers alleged heros/heroines as partners an entirely subjective choice?

(Not to mention the fallacious assumption to believe that heros and heroines actually exist outside the realm of fiction).

Edited June 5, 2009 by Xray

[tjohnson]

If the objective existent, electron,

can have but one definition, by what rationale can any other objective existent have more than one definition?

Can you think of an example?

As for Rand's definition of "truth" quoted above, why would it not be very useful for you?

Sure how about the definition of 'man'?

man - a featherless biped

man - a rational animal

man - a timebinding class of life

My training has shown me that ultimately all our language is built upon undefined terms - the building blocks of language. These terms must be accepted without further discussion as it is understood what is meant by them. In this definition "Truth is the identification of a fact of reality" there are terms which need further definition, for example 'fact' and 'reality'. This definition is too vague for me. I would define 'a truth' as a statement similar in structure to some observation or experience.

[Xray]

If the objective existent, electron,

can have but one definition, by what rationale can any other objective existent have more than one definition?

Can you think of an example?

Sure how about the definition of 'man'?

man - a featherless biped

man - a rational animal

man - a timebinding class of life

But these are are categories. Categories are based on arbitrarily selected similarities.

"man - a featherless biped" belongs in the same category as Tyranosaurus Rex

"man - a rational animal" suggests that animals not labeled as "man" are "irrational", that they possess no reason, which is clearly not the case. A dog for example can catagorize, hypothesize, differentiate.

"Timebinding class of life" is not differentiated from other timebinding classes of life.

Edited June 6, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

"The denotion/connotation issue is crucial in this epistemological discussion about Rand's ethical values, which she claims to be 'objective'."

Rather than getting enmeshed in the maelstrom of questions, we will examine each segment of your endless post.

You state that "...she claims to be 'objective'". You "cleverly" [subconsciously or consciously] attempt to use the third of the denotative meanings of the word claim which is "to assert in the face of possible contradiction", versus the even the second, "to take as the rightful owner".

Why?

[Xray]

If the objective existent, electron,

can have but one definition, by what rationale can any other objective existent have more than one definition?

Can you think of an example?

As for Rand's definition of "truth" quoted above, why would it not be very useful for you?

Sure how about the definition of 'man'?

man - a featherless biped

man - a rational animal

man - a timebinding class of life

My training has shown me that ultimately all our language is built upon undefined terms - the building blocks of language. These terms must be accepted without further discussion as it is understood what is meant by them.

But does understanding a term imply acceptance?

For example, I perfectly understand what is meant by the term "original sin". Does this mean I have to accept the subjective value judgement implied in the term?

I also perfectly understand what Rand means by life "proper to man". Does this mean I have to accept her subjective value catalog, treating the category "man" as if it were a finite existent, thereby denying the fact of individual identities?

Edited June 6, 2009 by Xray

[tjohnson]

But these are are categories (grouping by similarities), and not definitions which identify an entity by unequivocallly separating it from other entities via a set of differing characteristics.

I don't believe it is possible to "unequivocally separate it from other entities via a set of differing characteristics". Because language is built upon undefined terms there will always be some equivocation possible. Definitions may be chosen for various purposes and the "rightness" of the definition is determined by how well it accomplishes the purpose.

[Xray]

"The denotion/connotation issue is crucial in this epistemological discussion about Rand's ethical values, which she claims to be 'objective'."

Rather than getting enmeshed in the maelstrom of questions, we will examine each segment of your endless post.

You state that "...she claims to be 'objective'". You "cleverly" [subconsciously or consciously] attempt to use the third of the denotative meanings of the word claim which is "to assert in the face of possible contradiction", versus the even the second, "to take as the rightful owner".

Why?

"claims to be objective" symbolizes subjectively declaring something to be a fact. Where's the problem?

Edited June 6, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Give me an example of:

objectively declaring something to be true; and of

objectively claiming something to be true.

[Xray]

[...] [with new bolding emphasis]

[...]

On Rand's conception, a rational man acts selfishly. An irrational man acts unselfishly [or selflessly].

So per Rand, Keating asking Roark to do his work for him was an "unselfish" act?

[...]

Two points:

1. Since ideas are thought by human beings, and while an idea may have been taught down through the ages, there must have been an individual who independently discovered it the first time. (This is not to say that many individuals could not have independently arrived at the same idea.) "2+2=4" as an idea had to be discovered, but since everybody knows it and uses it nowadays, no one remembers who first discovered it. I am crediting Ayn Rand for being the first to discover the cited ideas. But now that I have independently assessed them for myself that they are true, I have adopted them, integrated them, used them, and made them my own--as I have made "2+2=4" mine.

2. So, yes, I think that Keating's asking Roark to design the Cortlandt Homes for him was an unselfish act. Why? Because Keating well knew that a man's achievement is his own, and that any fame that follows is always derivative of that which one has achieved. Keating knew he could not achieve, but he wanted the fame. He desired a consequence contra to its cause. It was a desire for unreality that motivated him--the knowledge of the facts be damned. Since the act was motivated by this irrational desire, against the consent of his mind's rational judgments of causality; therefore, his asking Roark to do the work was an unselfish act.

[...]

Going by this definition, every thief, and robber and murderer would be unselfish too. But I suppose not even their defense lawyer would refer to them as unselfish, even if the lawyer were a Randist.

[...]

Precisely. Going by this definition [of the new concept], every thief, robber, and murderer would be considered unselfish. Observe the complete inversion of this conception of selfishness in contrast to the conventional view--as you say, it is "in complete contradiction to the accepted" meaning of the word. By the conventional view, one often hears that it is the thief or robber or murderer who was selfish and who did not think of anyone else but him. Not if one understands Ayn Rand's alternate conception.

[...]

[...]

What about Roark blowing up the building, potentially endangering other people's lives? Isn't that an act of ruthless egotism too? How can he, from a breach of contract, feel entilted to such an act of destruction? What does this say about the psychological make-up of this "hero" whom Rand created "as man should be"? And how does this act of violence gel with the Randian dogma of non-initiation of violence?

[...]

Great questions! Really great and penetrating. But I cannot answer your questions in the current context because [...]

Tying up some loose ends strictly for myself from Post #26 to get them straight in my mind,

My interpretation of Ayn Rand's new conception of egoism: (For a comparison to an earlier rendering, see Post #61, encoded portion.)

• moral code: [code of values:] a set of abstract principles serving as a system of teleological measurement which grades the choices and actions open to man, according to the degree to which they achieve or frustrate the code's standard of value--whether that standard be life qua man, life qua brute, or pleasure, or death.
  
• egoism: the moral code that a man's existence is his to live and enjoy and that rationality is his highest virtue.
  
• altruism: the moral code that a man's existence is to serve other men and that sacrifice is his highest virtue.
  
• rationality: the use of reason as the only means for acquiring knowledge and guiding one's actions.
  
• sacrifice: the giving up of a higher value for the sake of a lower value.
  
• volition: a capacity of man for choosing to think or not.
  
• reason: the faculty of consciousness that a human must choose volitionally to activate in order to think.
  
• self: the faculty of reason in the context of choosing to evaluate.
  
• mind: the faculty of reason in the context of choosing to act.
  
• nonvolitional action: an animalistic nonrational action.
  
• volitionless action: a man's action without volition in the presence of coercion or interference from other men.
  
• volitional action: a human action with volition in the absence of coercion and interference from other men.
  
• freedom: the absence of coercion and interference from other men (a.k.a. liberty:).
  
• A reflex action is nonmotivated by any conscious self (e.g., digestion, hiccup).
  
• An animal action is motivated 100 percent by self-interest.
  
  • In a situation without freedom,
    • A coerced man has no choice but to act nonselfishly (without the self).
      
    • A tyrant acts selflessly or unselfishly (against the self).
      

    [*]In a situation with freedom,

    • A rational man acts selfishly (pro self, with the assent of the conceptual mind).
      
    • An irrational man acts selflessly or unselfishly (against the self).
      
    • A rational but erroneous man acts selflessly (mistakenly against the self).
      

  [*]self-interest: that which relates to the means for gaining or keeping one's values.

  • selfishness: a concern for one's volitional rational self-interest.
    
  • selflessness: a concern for one's volitional irrational self-interest (a.k.a. unselfishness:).
    
  • nonselfishness: a concern for one's volitionless nonrational self-interest.
    

  [*]egoist: one who values his mind, respects its judgments, and respects its nature (e.g., fragility).

  [*]non-egoist: one who disvalues his mind, disrespects its volitional nature, and elevates irrational emotions and desires above rational judgments.

  • hedonist: a non-egoist who takes pleasure as the standard of value.
    
  • altruist: a non-egoist who takes selflessness as the standard of value.
    
    • second-hander: an altruist who depends on the minds of others and sacrifices his life to them.
      
    • power-luster: an altruist who depends on the minds of others and sacrifices their lives to him.
      

"On Rand's conception, a rational man acts selfishly. An irrational man acts unselfishly [or selflessly]."

- - -

Peter Keating asked Howard Roark to design Cortlandt Homes for him. Roark dynamited the Cortlandt-Homes constructions. Why is the former's action irrational, and why is the latter's action rational?

In order to judge a volitional action as rational or irrational, one has to judge the human actor [1] by what he knows and values, and [2] by how he comes to take the action. If he knows that "2+2=4" and chooses to write "4" when the question "what is the sum of 2 and 2?" is posed; then he is acting rationally--and therefore, he is acting selfishly. On the other hand, if, knowing what he knows, he chooses to write any number other than "4" when the same question is asked; then he is acting irrationally, betraying his "self," betraying his own judgments, i.e., his knowledge and values"--and therefore, he is acting selflessly.

Evaluating Keating's action:

Keating's action was irrational.

Why?

Because Keating well

knew

that a man's achievement is his own, and that any fame that follows is always derivative of that which one has achieved. Keating knew he could not achieve, but he wanted the fame. He desired a consequence contra to its cause. It was a desire for unreality that motivated him--the knowledge of the facts be damned. Since the act was motivated by this irrational desire, against the consent of his mind's rational judgments of causality; therefore, his asking Roark to do the work was an unselfish act.

He knew the facts of reality, but he evaded the evidence and disregarded reason. He bypassed his mind's rational judgments; he dismissed his reasoning self and went with his irrational desires--the desires that were never filtered through reason. He chose to act on this basis. Thus, he acted irrationally. Since a man who acts irrationally, acts unselfishly (or selflessly); therefore, Keating acted against himself in the long run.

Keating was a second-hander, and every one of his actions was motivated by his self-interest toward fame and praise of others. But he was not acting toward his rational self-interest. He never thought whether becoming an architect to please his mother was

really

to his self-interest. Even if he did, he deferred whatever thought he had to hers and to her emotions. Every decision and action was motivated for himself, for what's best for him. But was it motivated selfishly if that self was denied of its judgments? He never knew himself, that budding artist that never was. Motivated, yes, by definition, but second-handedly and without a self, he acted selflessly. He was not acting selfishly.

Evaluating Roark's action:

Now, what about Howard Roark's action? I am imagining Howard Roark's contractual agreements and his underlying decision process to be as follows:

1. Everyone has the right to benefit from his own action.
   
2. A man's action is a product of his thoughts and purposes (or lack thereof).
   
3. If I design it, then I expect it to be built exactly as designed.
   
4. If [3] is falsified, then by [1] I have the right to withdraw my design from the world.
   
5. If my design is withdrawn from the world, then by [2] nothing dependent on it can or shall exist.
   
6. If by [4] I have right to withdraw my design from the world and by [5] nothing dependent on it can or shall exist, then I have the right to demolish that which is dependent on my design.
   
7. To work productively, a man must exercise his rights.
   
8. A willful, deliberate breach of contract is an initiation of force.
   

Since Roark was a man of integrity and since he truly esteemed himself and his thoughts, he would act on his judgments; that is to say, he would act rationally.

When the design to Cortlandt Homes was delivered to Peter Keating, Roark expected that the former was to honor the contract by building it exactly as he had designed it. It was not honored. [3] was falsified. His reasoning mind judged that by [6] he gained the right to demolish the Cortlandt-Homes constructions. His mind also judged that by [7] he must do so.

Roark chose to act on that judgment. Not to have acted, not to have demolished the Cortlandt Homes would have been to betray the very faculty of consciousness that gave rise to his architectural creations, i.e., to betray himself, to betray his mind, his fountainhead. Thus, in dynamiting Cortlandt Homes, Roark acted selfishly. Not to do so would have been an act of selflessness.

Before dynamiting the Cortlandt Homes, Roark planned carefully and sought Dominique's help to lure the lone night watchman away from harm's way. Thus no one was intentionally hurt by his action. Dominique got hurt only because she was too good at being an alibi for him. The demolition was an effect of a prior, intentional breach of contract, which by [8] was the initiation of violence. Dynamiting Cortlandt Homes therefore was both an act of self-defense and an act of selfishness.

Thanks for yor reply Thom. I much appreciate your effort to answer my question in detail.

Both Keating and Roark were volitional goal-seekeng entities, 100 per cent self-interest motivating each. That's all there is to it. Rand created her own linguistic universe, and her arbitrarily labeling Roark's decision as "rational" and "selfish", and Keating's as "irrational and selfless" merely indicates her subjectively attributing value or non-value.

However you slice it, you have subjective value judgement landing at your doorstep each time.

Virtually every ideology has its set of terms, arbitrarily declaring A as a value and B as the opposite.

Edited June 6, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Give me an example of:

objectively declaring something to be true; and of

objectively claiming something to be true.

The word "objectively" here modifies the words "claim" and "declare" in the sense of "actually".

Examples:

- The Pope objectively declared that contraception is against god's will.

(= the Pope actually declared this to be the case).

- Family killer Jeffrey MacDonald objectively claimed to be innocent.

(= "Jeffrey MacDonald actually claimed this to be the case).

Here, proof/disproof of the statements goes to whether it is true that they declared/claimed this.

Edited June 6, 2009 by Xray