Why did Dagny and Hank assume the motor had been invented by a single man?

[Jonathan]

Imo Roark's blowing up the building is a huge red flag indicating that the writer lacked empathy and was without much consideration for anyone else.

Roark had no quarrel except with Keating who broke the contract.

Yet, Roark's actions were not directed at Keating only, but many others as well. The "collateral damage" involved destroying the work and property of many innocent parties.

Did he ever once consider who owned the property, or the pride the workman had in the construction? No. Literally, nothing else mattered except his "will be done."

I've used this example before, but imagine Roark as a chef who had a secret agreement with Keating to try to get the government to use one of Roark's recipes by passing it off as Keating's, a recipe for a soup which tasted great but used very cheap ingredients and thus allowed for the satisfaction and nourishment of thousands of people at public soup kitchens. And then Roark showing up and dumping thousands of gallons soup into the streets because Keating allowed someone else to add ingredients not called for in the recipe. People would go hungry, and some might even get sick and die, because Roark threw a culinary-aesthetic fit. His lack of concern about others' property, health and lives, while focusing only on his own anger about his recipe not being followed to the letter, would understandably come across as psychotic to some readers.

Do you think for an instant that Rand would give up this fantastic climax to her novel for any of these or other reasons? Hah!

I don't think that Rand would have given up the climax for anything. After all, she didn't give it up regardless of how much twisting of the novel's reality she had to do in order to pretend that the government "got what they needed" from Roark without giving him the "payment" he was due, and that Roark had the right to take action against those with whom he didn't have a contract, but against whom he and Keating committed fraud, which included Keating violating the contract that he had with the government prior to agreeing to it by conspiring to pass off Roark's work as his own.

Roark's actions were directed at himself for doing the design in the first place. He was willing to go to prison consequently. The government owned the property. Screw the government.

Technically, the people from whom the government acquired the wealth in order to build the project owned it. The fact that the government, or any other thief, confiscates property doesn't mean that it's suddenly Roark's, or yours or mine, to dispose of as we please. If a thief were to break into all of the houses in my neighborhood, taking 100 dollars from each of us, I wouldn't have the right to destroy the total of, say, 5000 dollars just because 100 of it was mine and I'd rather destroy my 100 than allow the thief to keep it. I don't suddenly have the right to control the money which belongs to all of my neighbors just because I see myself as being more romantically heroic and important than they are. The same is true of money or property that the government has taken from me and others. Their wealth is not mine to play with to satisfy an aesthetic (or other) itch and then destroy it.

If they hadn't been in the housing project business Roark wouldn't have been shunted aside in seeking the commission by a much of moral and aesthetic retards with political pull and power.

So, is it your view that government representatives don't have the right to choose to not hire an architect whose ideas, attitudes (unwillingness to compromise) or work they don't like? Besides, Roark didn't even submit his own proposal before deciding to conspire to pass off his work as Keating's. So apparently a person doesn't actually have to be rejected by government representatives before claiming that they wouldn't hire him and that he therefore has the right to subvert their selection process? He can just feel that they probably wouldn't hire him, and then commit the fraud of passing off his work as someone else's?

He had nothing against Keating and was not trying to get back at him.

I think you're missing the point of Xray's criticism. It's not an issue of Roark having something against Keating, but of Keating being the only person with whom Roark had an agreement, and thus Keating being the only person with whom Roark might have had a legitimate grievance.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jonathan,

The only caveat I have to all your arguments about Roark is that Rand did hit on one fundamental alternative that is true: when you are cornered by force, you can only react with force if you want to be left alone.

Granted, if you treat the housing project as an isolated deal cut off from the rest of the government's meddling in the architecture industry, your arguments stand impeccably. But the whole context of the novel shows that Roark's enemies (the ones wielding force against him) were not just the individuals who were involved in that deal, but the entire social structure that sanctioned their force against him.

Leaving aside that the government's commitment was to Keating and not Roark (although this is merely a technicality because the people who decided actually did know it was Roark), why does one side have to honor its commitments and the other side not? Because the side that does not honor its commitments needs the good stuff from the creators? What gives them the right to not honor their commitments? Guns? Well, others can use force, too. I think that was Rand's main point.

At least the force Roark used was against his own creation, not against the individuals who used force against him (regulations, trials and so forth).

Harold Robbins, of all people, said it beautifully in a pot-boiler. I don't remember the name of the book anymore, but the line has stayed with me.

A mafia-like dude was dining with a lady who he was wooing and one of his flunkies started making lewd remarks about her. He told the flunky to stop and the flunky did not. So he held suddenly grabbed the flunky's hand, held it down on the table, pulled a finger back until it snapped and broke it. Then the flunky moved off complaining.

When the lady expressed astonishment and asked if that was necessary, he replied, "You have to hurt some people to get them to pay attention."

That, I submit, was Rand's point much more than NIOF, contractual obligations, etc.

Galt said, "Get out of my way." Roark blew up the building complex he designed because others were using legal technicalities to break their commitments and force their way in. In Rand's world, the government dudes meant it when they said, "We will control you by force," and creative dudes meant it when they said, "Leave me alone."

Actually, when you think about it in real life...

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Actually, when you think about it in real life...

Michael

In real life a Roark type act against property would not have lead to an acquittal.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Jonathan made some good points, but I have to say government should not be in housing project business, just to make the obvious point.

When I said "Screw the government" it was out of my own present-day context which is now incomparably worse than Roark's. The health "care" bill passed by the House of Reps actually has a provision for sending people to prison if they don't buy health insurance. I'm on the verge of dropping out and disappearing for the rest of my life.

--Brant

don't have time for more

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In real life a Roark type act against property would not have lead to an acquittal.

Bob,

In real life, such folks do not become conscientious objectors willing to go to court.

They destroy the good they were producing for the world and walk away.

Period.

I know. I did it once.

Michael

[Selene]

Ba'al:

As Brant noted, it would depend on who was on the jury. If I was on the jury the minimum would be a hung jury. I refer folks to 12 Angry Men for a model.

Also, some crazy Russian lady wrote a play with two different plot endings depending on the jury which was chosen from the audience.

I would also refer folks, especially in this current political climate, to the Allan Drury novels wherein two disparate futures depend clearly on who becomes President. One of the books is called The Promise of Joy, hmmm Promise hope, change...nah the American electorate would never be that stupid...

Michael, I have no problem with blowing up Cortland, but Ragnar was my favorite character, along with Ellis, so it is no surprise. However, if I remember, Cortland was an exponential leap in the interior public housing design conceptually that would make a "public housing project" economically feasible. It was because of Roark's "brilliant" solve of the long term public problem of quality over a large scale with, yes, ruthless, efficiency.

Cortland could not have been built or come into existence without Howard Roark's mind. It is via that concept, that he establishes ownership, in a philosophical sense, not a strictly legal sense. That triangular peg in that circular hole.

Adam

not trying to pick an argument, just clarifying

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

Your argument essentially complements mine. I see no conflict at all between them.

Michael

[Selene]

Adam,

Your argument essentially complements mine. I see no conflict at all between them.

Michael

Yes. Lol. I have to be more clear. You and I are completed in agreement. I have no problem fighting back. I have six great decades in this country, I have a lot more to do.

I am almost done with The River of Doubt [Theodore Roosevelt's Darkest Journey] by Candice Millard. Brazil in 1913, bored to tears, he, his son and a party get to the headwaters, by land, of the now Rio Roosevelt and then is the first non-Indian/native to accomplish the trip. The river joins the now known as the Manaus river which then goes into the Amazon. Amazing place Brazil.

Ants compose ten percent [10%] of the biomass of all the animals in the rain forest. Amazing number. More interestingly, if the numbers that I am seeing are true, the total rain forest acreage of the world is increasing. Now that could be some organizations spin. I have not tracked it to the source yet.

You would enjoy scanning through it.

Adam

[Jonathan]

The only caveat I have to all your arguments about Roark is that Rand did hit on one fundamental alternative that is true: when you are cornered by force, you can only react with force if you want to be left alone.

Granted, if you treat the housing project as an isolated deal cut off from the rest of the government's meddling in the architecture industry, your arguments stand impeccably. But the whole context of the novel shows that Roark's enemies (the ones wielding force against him) were not just the individuals who were involved in that deal, but the entire social structure that sanctioned their force against him.

My perspective is that many Objectivists, perhaps including Rand if she were alive, would be in favor of using the same type of force against architects (or other artists) that they dislike.

Gather a jury of average Objectivists, or even of Objectivism's self-appointed leaders and spokesmen, and ask them to hear a case in which a developer has been encouraged by architectural critics to sue Frank Gehry, and I have no doubt that the Objectivists would decide that Gehry was guilty of defrauding the developer. They would feel, as they often say they do, that Gehry's work is ugly, uninspired and uninspiring, non-art or anti-art, and that it is an attempt to destroy all values. If such a jury came to a verdict against Gehry, wouldn't they became a part of a "structure that sanctions and uses force" inappropriately?

If a public building project was being proposed, and it was the type of project whose existence Objectivists consider legitimate, such as a courthouse, police station or military base, would Objectivists, as taxpaying citizens and/or as project committee members, have the right to oppose Gehry's being hired to work on the project because they don't like his work and prefer that of another, or would their opposition be an act of using government force against him?

When it comes to the issue of subjective tastes in things like art and architecture, and in government authorities, juries or committees making decisions which necessarily involve subjective aesthetic preferences, how can any decision they make not be considered the use of force against those whose bids or proposals were rejected?

Leaving aside that the government's commitment was to Keating and not Roark (although this is merely a technicality because the people who decided actually did know it was Roark),

Certainly they knew that Roark had designed the building, but only after Keating had submitted the design as his own. They knew that Keating was already in violation of the contract that he was proposing to them, and that they therefore wouldn't have to honor their contract with him, since he violated it first.

why does one side have to honor its commitments and the other side not?

Keating's "side" didn't honor its commitment. Keating didn't design Cortland, but instead hoped to fool the government and the public into accepting the design of an architect known to be held in low regard.

Because the side that does not honor its commitments needs the good stuff from the creators? What gives them the right to not honor their commitments? Guns? Well, others can use force, too. I think that was Rand's main point.

The problem with that is that while conspiring to let Keating take credit for his work, Roark comments on the unfairness of public housing, and obviously he knows how corrupt government authorities can be, yet he wants to work on their project anyway. He wants not only the satisfaction of solving their problem on paper, but of seeing what he knows is confiscated wealth spent on the construction of his design.

At least the force Roark used was against his own creation, not against the individuals who used force against him (regulations, trials and so forth).

No, as I mentioned in my last post, Roark's use of force is not only against his own creation, but also against property that belonged to others. Their wealth was not rightfully his to destroy as he saw fit. If he had burned his blueprints after solving the problem of affordable housing, that would have been an act of destroying his creation. Instead, he destroyed a collaborative project which included others' wealth, material and labor.

Harold Robbins, of all people, said it beautifully in a pot-boiler. I don't remember the name of the book anymore, but the line has stayed with me.

A mafia-like dude was dining with a lady who he was wooing and one of his flunkies started making lewd remarks about her. He told the flunky to stop and the flunky did not. So he held suddenly grabbed the flunky's hand, held it down on the table, pulled a finger back until it snapped and broke it. Then the flunky moved off complaining.

When the lady expressed astonishment and asked if that was necessary, he replied, "You have to hurt some people to get them to pay attention."

That, I submit, was Rand's point much more than NIOF, contractual obligations, etc.

Galt said, "Get out of my way." Roark blew up the building complex he designed because others were using legal technicalities to break their commitments and force their way in.

Roark and Keating gave the government the "legal technicalities" by using fraud to force their way into working on the project. Roark says that without him the building wouldn't have existed. What's closer to the full truth is that the project wouldn't have existed without confiscated wealth and Roark's eagerness to play with it for his own aesthetic satisfaction.

In Rand's world, the government dudes meant it when they said, "We will control you by force," and creative dudes meant it when they said, "Leave me alone."

One's actions don't say "leave me alone" when one conspires to work on a government project whose existence one admits to opposing philosophically. One doesn't inject oneself into an illegitimate government project if one wants the government out of one's life and creations.

Having said all of the above, don't get me wrong. I love The Fountainhead. I love Roark's defiance and aesthetic independence. I just don't like hearing people suggest that Roark was heroic according to Objectivist philosophy, that he wasn't a rogue, that he had a contract with the government which gave him the right to take matters into his own hands, that he was a victim during the Cortland mess, etc.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Jonathan, don't over-nuance The Fountainhead to death. Substantial improvements to the novel could only have been done by Rand herself if she had had more time in writing it, but really not regarding the points you have made. Your points are to the point of whether you or I would have the right to blow up these buildings if we were architects and we had done what Roark had in designing them. Of course not. The Fountainhead like AS is surreal. The place for this type of criticism is for We the Living, which I don't find surreal at all, if we wish to harp about a novel of hers qua novel. If we want to do what Ragnar does in real life we're going to kill a lot of people. That's one reason there's not much of him in AS. Rand skimmed off the pirate glamour and let the rest ride.

--Brant

Edited November 9, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jonathan,

At this moment I feel like I have felt when I took a multiple choice test where the answer I have in mind is not among the choices.

I agree with you that a jury of Objectivists (not all, but more than enough for comfort) judging Gehry guilty of fraud is a very real danger should this kind of power ever come to their hands. But I don't see this arising from the story or the main themes in it. I do see it arising from later developments in Rand's non-fiction, the early kangaroo courts in Rand's apartment, and from the thirst to control others that sometimes wells up with a lot of acrimony in our subcommunity. I think, in this case, artistic taste would be secondary (and a far, far, far second at that) to plain old meanness of spirit.

I like your way of thinking, though. I perfectly understand your, "Let's look at it from the other end" way of analysis because I do this myself. But the thing I cannot forget about The Fountainhead is that the first-hand selfishness theme is the point, not any procedure about contract law or how court systems should operate.

One of the ways which Rand often illustrated the goodness of her characters was to show them driven to do things that they consciously did not want to do. They succumb to temptation, but the temptation is to be good/productive/life affirming, etc., instead of being evil. The housing project was too good a challenge for Roark to pass up. Rearden couldn't stop himself from going after Dagny. And so on.

From a rather forced angle, you could even say that Roark had to blow up the housing project because he knew in his heart of hearts that, if he were to be consistent, it should not have existed in the first place.

In other words, there is a vast amount more on the table than contract law. In simple contractual terms, Roark was wrong. The problem is that the story is not about a contract.

There is even another angle. I suppose I am a practicing anarchist even though I support limited government. I also think Rand was essentially the same underneath it all.

In my own life, I never let obedience to the government be a guiding factor in my decisions. It has only been a practical concern, i.e., when I have wanted to do something I thought was right and the government was in the way, my only thought has been whether I could get away with it—and how to get away with it. If that meant bribing officials, I have done that. If that meant being an outlaw, well, I have done that, too. If that meant standing in line and getting a slip of paper, I have even done that (with distaste, of course, since that was legal... ). Most of this was in Brazil and I have since mellowed from being beaten up and sewn back together too many times, but my attitude is still the same.

In other words, up to a certain level, I literally don't believe the rules are for me. I never have. (In fact, that's one of the reasons I am hell for bullies.)

This is the meaning of Roark's actions to me. He is not someone to whom normal rules apply and he refuses to allow himself to be bullied.

I think it is a mistake to try to justify his actions (or even try to understand them) from the perspective of following normal rules.

Neitzche anyone?

Michael

[Dragonfly]

Neitzche anyone?

Who?!

[Xray]

Michael, I have no problem with blowing up Cortland, ...

It was because of Roark's "brilliant" solve of the long term public problem of quality over a large scale with, yes, ruthless, efficiency.

...

Cortland could not have been built or come into existence without Howard Roark's mind. It is via that concept, that he establishes ownership, in a philosophical sense, not a strictly legal sense.

Roark destroyed property that was not his property by any stretch of the imagination. Roark did not use any "philosophical dynamite" - the rubble was very concrete.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Oops!

I told you normal rules didn't apply to me, but maybe including spelling rules is going a bit too far.

Let me try again.

Neachee anyone?

(All right, all right)

Nietzche anyone?

Michael

[Selene]

Michael, I have no problem with blowing up Cortland, ...

It was because of Roark's "brilliant" solve of the long term public problem of quality over a large scale with, yes, ruthless, efficiency.

...

Cortland could not have been built or come into existence without Howard Roark's mind. It is via that concept, that he establishes ownership, in a philosophical sense, not a strictly legal sense.

Roark destroyed property that was not his property by any stretch of the imagination. Roark did not use any "philosophical dynamite" - the rubble was very concrete.

Ms. Xray:

Are you familiar with the part of the Fountainhead that I am referring to?

Adam

[Selene]

Jonathan,

I like your way of thinking, though. I perfectly understand your, "Let's look at it from the other end" way of analysis because I do this myself. But the thing I cannot forget about The Fountainhead is that the first-hand selfishness theme is the point, not any procedure about contract law or how court systems should operate.

One of the ways which Rand often illustrated the goodness of her characters was to show them driven to do things that they consciously did not want to do. They succumb to temptation, but the temptation is to be good/productive/life affirming, etc., instead of being evil. The housing project was too good a challenge for Roark to pass up. Rearden couldn't stop himself from going after Dagny. And so on.

From a rather forced angle, you could even say that Roark had to blow up the housing project because he knew in his heart of hearts that, if he were to be consistent, it should not have existed in the first place.

In other words, there is a vast amount more on the table than contract law. In simple contractual terms, Roark was wrong. The problem is that the story is not about a contract.

There is even another angle. I suppose I am a practicing anarchist even though I support limited government. I also think Rand was essentially the same underneath it all.

Michael

Michael:

Precisely. I realize that the anarcho-capitalism utopia is a dream, but the underlying attitude is one that I share completely. Yes, there are rules, and there is doing what is right.

Moreover, when the land is laden with laws, everyone is an outlaw. Roark's behavior flowed from his ego, from pure thought, to reality. His lust and passion for perfection was as intense as the explosion of Cortland.

Adam

leaves the childish Freudian analytics to Ms. Xray

[Dragonfly]

(All right, all right)

Nietzche anyone?

You're improving, but you're not quite there yet. Try harder!

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Oops!

I told you normal rules didn't apply to me, but maybe including spelling rules is going a bit too far.

Let me try again.

Neachee anyone?

(All right, all right)

Nietzche anyone?

Michael

Who? Take two. Try again .

Jim

Edit- I just now see I crossposted with Dragonfly. With Mike Hardy and Ellen Stuttle not regularly here, someone has to fill the void. Somehow, the Pauli Exclusion Principle doesn't apply to spelling corrections .

Edited November 9, 2009 by James Heaps-Nelson

[9thdoctor]

It's Nietzsche!!!!

[Dragonfly]

Edit- I just now see I crossposted with Dragonfly. With Mike Hardy and Ellen Stuttle not regularly here, someone has to fill the void. Somehow, the Pauli Exclusion Principle doesn't apply to spelling corrections .

Didn't you know that spelling corrections are bosons?

[Xray]

[All quotes: MSK]

Jonathan,

The only caveat I have to all your arguments about Roark is that Rand did hit on one fundamental alternative that is true: when you are cornered by force, you can only react with force if you want to be left alone.

Who forced Roark to make a deal with Keating? Did he not intend to use Keating's governmental connections to get his ideas displayed? Was he so naive as to believe that Keating was honest, all-powerful and could guarantee total compliance with Roark's will?

Was Roark so foolish that he believed he could embrace the "system" while simultaneously opposing it? Did he not sanction the "system" as a vehicle to carry his ideas? Or, did he not indicate the "system" "should" bend to his will and became angered when other wills thwarted his intent?

"Granted, if you treat the housing project as an isolated deal cut off from the rest of the government's meddling in the architecture industry, your arguments stand impeccably."

It is isolated as a deal between Roark and Keating. If the gripe is against "government", then anyone even with a tax-paying connection, or using "public facilities", is a fair game target for any perceived affront.

Had Roark gone after Keating, with whom he had an agreement, at least the actual offender would have been the target of his wrath. This was not the case. The destruction of the building attributed liability, not just to Keating, but to one and all who had nothing to do with the contract, but had a hand in the construction. This includes those paying tax money for the project. What next, home invasion to confiscate personal property alleged to be held by governmental favoritism, therefore, depriving Roark of his "entitlement"?

"But the whole context of the novel shows that Roark's enemies (the ones wielding force against him) were not just the individuals who were involved in that deal, but the entire social structure that sanctioned their force against him."

In other words, via the abstract as "enemy", it is open season on anyone Roark regards as contributor to the governmental system even contributions made under duress.

Or did Roark have a crystal ball telling him who was exempt, and why? If so, Rand makes no mention of this. And how about himself? If his design was so great, offered and utilized by "government", is this not providing a basis of praise for "government"; the very "government" he ostensibly opposes? Roark presumes to prop up and tear down at the same time. Where are his "principles?"

"Leaving aside that the government's commitment was to Keating and not Roark (although this is merely a technicality because the people who decided actually did know it was Roark), why does one side have to honor its commitments and the other side not? Because the side that does not honor its commitments needs the good stuff from the creators?

What gives them the right to not honor their commitments? Guns? Well, others can use force, too.I think that was Rand's main point."

Imo this does not zero in on the issue. The commitment was made by Keating to Roark, not to, or by, some abstract called "government."

Those making a living as carpenters, brick/block layers, etc. know nothing about any contract between Roark and Keating. They are there to do their job.

Suppose that when the job is done and the building completed, a workman is not only rewarded by monetary gain, but takes much pride in the quality of his work.

He sees his workmanship as an art form with aesthetic value. He thinks of his work as an enduring testimony not only to his construction know-how, but as a testimony to his integrity reflected in the work. He looks forward to viewing this building and his work for many years to come.

Alas, it is not to be. An architect becomes enraged and blows the building to bits! He is "justified" in totally disregarding all other persons and their valuations because someone tinkered with his design. Unreal!

At least the force Roark used was against his own creation, not against the individuals who used force against him (regulations, trials and so forth).

The building didn't come into creation just because Roark drew some lines on a piece of paper. He did not own the land; did not own the building materials; he did not do the physical labor, and did not hire the work crews and direct construction. So, just exactly how is the building "his own creation?" In fact, he implicitly contends that it wasn't since his building plans had been altered.

If not even the design of the building is his and he did not own the materials, nor physically construct the building, just exactly what is Roark's basis for implicit claim of ownership? Just look at the gross absurdity of all this.

Keating alters Roark's building plans, thereby, magically providing Roark with ownership of a building that Roark neither designed, nor constructed? Doesn't this makes "justifying" the dynamiting deal rather a sticky wicket?

Even if one chooses to ignore the contract between Roark and Keating, Roark's action tells the truth. If you want to look at it as a "government building", i.e., "public property", Roark has no more ownership of the property than anyone else. No matter, in his mind, his "ownership" supercedes all others. HE owns it; thus, is he "justified" in the destruction.

The message is clear alright. If you don't believe and behave exactly as I decree, I will destroy you.

What kind of "individualism" is that?

Edited November 10, 2009 by Xray

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Edit- I just now see I crossposted with Dragonfly. With Mike Hardy and Ellen Stuttle not regularly here, someone has to fill the void. Somehow, the Pauli Exclusion Principle doesn't apply to spelling corrections .

Didn't you know that spelling corrections are bosons?

No, but I did know that bosons are involved in initiating force .

Jim

[Brant Gaede]

Roark had much more cause to blow up the Stoddard Temple, emotionally speaking. And speaking of that a psychological case could have been made by the author that repressed anger over what happened to the temple led to what he did to Cortlandt. But Rand wasn't into that kind of thing.

Brant

Edited November 10, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dayaamm!

I need to take some time off.

Nietzsche is pietzsche!

Everyone knows that.

(btw - I did not read Xray's post about mine and I have no intention of doing so. I presume there are no infringements of the posting guidelines in it.)

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Dayaamm!

I need to take some time off.

Nietzsche is pietzsche!

Everyone knows that.

(btw - I did not read Xray's post about mine and I have no intention of doing so. I presume there are no infringements of the posting guidelines in it.)

Michael

Michael, would you say that Xray needs a little more contact with the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum?

Jim