Re: The Fountainhead
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
alt.philosophy only
 
Advanced search
POPULAR GROUPS

more...

 Up
Re: The Fountainhead         

Group: alt.philosophy · Group Profile
Author: Michael Price
Date: Nov 7, 2006 20:36

Immortalist wrote:
> James wrote:
>> I saw Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead" not so long ago and was keen to engage
>> with those who have philosophical views on this work. Reading the entity for
>> The Fountainhead on Wikipedia;
>>
>
> That book made me get an A- in my 10th grade Drafting class. Us
> drafters were required to read it back then. I cannot decide whether my
> liking for logic comes from that book or Mr. Spock on Star Trek.
> http://images.google.com/images?q=spock probably both and other things.
> I haven't read that book in many years but if googoowikiyouman I
> remembered something cool bout my past thanx much indeedy!
>
>> Economist Mark Skousen criticized The Fountainhead on ideological grounds,
>> arguing that Rand's protagonist contradicts a basic premise of laissez-faire
>> capitalism (and therefore of Objectivism) - consumer sovereignty: "Howard
>> Roark's conviction ["An architect needs clients, but he does not subordinate
>> his work to their wishes."] is irrational... For Roark, A is not A. He wants
>> A to be B - his B, not his customer's A. Thus, Ayn Rand's ideal man
>> misconceives the very nature and logic of capitalism - to fulfill the needs
>> of customers and thereby advance the general welfare.
>>
>
Mises wrote about "consumer sovereignty" in a way that clarifies the
apparant
contradiction. Basically the consumer is not "sovereign" in the way
that George
the Third or Stalin was sovereign, he cannot force a producer to
produce what he
wants, all he can do is not give the producer what he wants in return
for what is
supplied. Far from Roark no thinking A is A, Roark is acutely aware
that what
the consumer wants ia B and what he wants to produce is A. He
understands
the nature of capitalism and the market, and part of that nature is
that you don't
have to surrender your principles to it, you just have to eat a lot of
saltines if you
don't.
> The invisible hand: "Every individual...generally, indeed, neither
> intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is
> promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign
> industry he intends only his own security; and by directing that
> industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value,
> he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other
> cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of
> his intention."
>
> ...individuals intent on their own gain, and hardly ever "intending"
> the good of others. But the remarkable thing was that nature (or
> Providence) had so contrived things that despite intentions to the
> contrary, individuals "necessarily" labored for the public interest,
> that is, by increasing society's annual revenue to its utmost capacity.
> This was the doctrine of natural or pre-established harmony,...
>
> "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the
> baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their
> own interest."
>
> Adam Smith:
> The Wealth of Nations, Book IV Chapter II
> http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-b4-c2.htm
>
> Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead
>
> Ayn Rand's story of Howard Roark, a brilliant architect who dares to
> stand alone against the hostility of second-hand souls. First published
> in 1943, this best-selling novel is a passionate defense of
> individualism and presents an exalted view of man's creative potential.
>
> http://www.ayn-rand.com/ayn-rand-fountainhead.asp
>
> Howard Roark, a brilliant young architect, is expelled from his
> architecture school for refusing to follow the school's outdated
> traditions. He goes to New York to work for Henry Cameron, a disgraced
> architect whom Roark admires...
>
> http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/fountainhead/summary.html
>
> Howard Roark is the undisputed hero of The Fountainhead, and his story
> drives the novel. His name contains the words "hard" and
> "roar," both of which accurately describe his tough, determined
> character. Roark has friends and colleagues, but relies on himself
> alone. Roark's buildings suggest his personality, for like Roark they
> are innovative and austere. Roark never compromises or deviates from
> his principles. Rand holds him up as everything that man can and should
> be. Consequently, Roark does not develop over the course of the
> novel-the ideal man does not need to change.
>
> Although Rand despised religion, she often describes Roark as if he is
> a religious figure. Roark does not preach, and he never actively seeks
> converts, but he inspires absolute devotion and rapture in his
> followers.
>
> Cameron, Mallory, Dominique, and Wynand change their entire
> *belief_systems* after meeting him. Dominique in particular exhibits a
> religious passion for Roark, racked by ecstasy and guilt as if inspired
> by a messiah. Like all Christ figures in literature, Roark's enemies
> persecute him. Despite the hatred of the world, Roark lives life as
> Rand thinks it should be lived.
>
> http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/fountainhead/canalysis.html
>
> The Primacy of the Individual
>
> Howard Roark is the novel's embodiment of the perfect man. Rand wants
> us to admire his talent and courage, and his struggle to resist
> society's sway and remain true to himself. The Fountainhead revolves
> around Roark's struggle to retain his individuality in the face of
> forces bent on bringing him to heel.
>
> At his second trial, Roark argues that individuals, not societies,
> propel history. He says that individual creators are the fountainhead
> of civilization. Roark's speech is passionate and lyrical, and the
> audience receives it with awed silence. The struggle for individuality
> is not confined to Roark.
>
> ...the desire to assert one's self becomes the single greatest virtue
> a character can possess. The novel ends triumphantly not because Roark
> defeats or converts his enemies, but because he has won the right to
> act according to his own principles.
>
> The thesis at the heart of The Fountainhead is that society has a herd
> mentality, and individuals must act selfishly in order to be free.
>
> The Importance of Reason
>
> The Fountainhead disapproves of sentimentalism, and argues that
> everything worth thinking or feeling should be the product of reason
> and logic, not emotion. Whenever Roark, Dominique, or Wynand expound on
> the supremacy of the individual, they justify their positions with
> logical arguments rather than with emotional appeals. The novel
> respects logic and reason so much that everything it applauds is
> scientific, factual, and pure.
>
> The novel's mathematicians, engineers, builders, and businessmen are
> inevitably more intelligent than its sentimental writers and
> journalists. Roark bases all of his designs on the simplest geometrical
> shapes, such as triangles or squares. Rand condemns sentimentality and
> compassion as the enemies of reason because they confuse the mind and
> compromise individualism.
>
> The arch-villain Toohey controls the weak by advocating such values as
> selflessness. Collectivism, altruism, and mysticism are depicted as
> illogical beliefs that manipulate the heart rather than engage the
> mind. In order to justify the novel's tough attitude, Rand argues
> that even the best intentions lead to imprisonment, while cold,
> unflinching reason sets man free.
>
> The Cold Ferocity of Love
>
> In The Fountainhead, love, like integrity and invention, is a principle
> worth fighting for and defending. The protagonists constantly hone and
> improve their relationships. Even Roark and Dominique forego some of
> their fierce devotion to independence and eventually allow themselves
> to surrender to one another.
>
> The emotion of love might seem to contradict the novel's devotion to
> reason, but the characters demand relationships so perfect that they
> come to seem logical and mathematical.
>
> Roark stands by while Dominique marries first Keating and then Wynand
> as if watching her enact an algebraic equation. He calculates that she
> will emerge from the marriages more suited to him, so he bears the pain
> of losing her to other men. Even in their passionate encounters, Roark
> and Dominique refuse to yield to emotion. Instead, they make love with
> a violent and calculating fury in scenes that Rand writes in prose more
> technical than romantic. The novel extols the virtues of science and
> logic and argues personal relationships can exist within these virtues.
> As long as relationships help people maximize their potential, then the
> novel sees love as a version of logic, and therefore approves of it.
>
> http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/fountainhead/themes.html
>
> *belief_systems*
>
> When Roark returns from a summer-long yacht trip with Wynand, he finds
> that, despite the agreement, the Cortlandt Homes project has been
> changed. Roark asks Dominique to distract the night watchman one night
> and then dynamites the building. When the police arrive, he submits
> without resistance.
>
> The entire country condemns Roark,
>
> ...but Wynand finally finds the courage to follow his convictions and
> orders his newspapers to defend him. The Banner's circulation drops
> and the workers go on strike, but Wynand keeps printing with
> Dominique's help. Eventually, Wynand gives in and denounces Roark. At
> the trial, Roark seems doomed,
>
> but he rouses the courtroom
>
> ...with a statement about the value of selfishness and the need to
> remain true to oneself. Roark describes the triumphant role of creators
> and the price they pay at the hands of corrupt societies.
> The jury finds him not guilty.
>
> ...Roark marries Dominique. Wynand asks Roark to design one last
> building, a skyscraper that will testify to the supremacy of man.
>
> http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/fountainhead/summary.html
>
> http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/fountainhead/
>
> The Fountainhead - Howard Roark Speech (Ayn Rand)
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc7oZ9yWqO4
> http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ayn+rand
>
> #####################################
>
> Faster than a speeding bullet! More powerful than a locomotive! Able to
> leap tall buildings in a single bound! Yes, it is Superman, but
> Nietzsche's Superman is not battling for truth, justice and the
> American way. Rather, Nietzsche's Superman (which literally translated
> from the original German ubermensch is Overman) is a human who has
> battled modern values and overcome the flaws of humanity. Nietzsche's
> philosophy has been associated with everything from socialism and
> fascism to Marilyn Manson.
>
> Superman, according to Nietzsche has reached a state of being where he
> is no longer affected by "pity, suffering, tolerence of the weak, the
> power of the soul over the body, the belief in an afterlife, the
> corruption of modern values (Nietzsche's Overman: Blueprint for the
> Antichrist Superstar)." Superman is constantly changing and in a state
> of rebirth and growth. He determines what is good and what is evil, not
> allowing religion or society to determine these things for him. The
> Superman finds his happiness in this way. He uses a reason that is
> independent of the modern values of society or religion. He determines
> his own values. This creation of his own values gives him joy, and in
> order for the Superman to cope with a changing world, the Superman must
> constantly change. This constant state of change is a constant source
> of joy, leaving little or no room for suffering.
>
> http://personal.ecu.edu/mccartyr/great/projects/Knowles.htm
>
> Condemned to Be Free
>
> ...Existentialism argues that freedom is such an unavoidable, and
> sometimes uncomfortable, characteristic of life that we are "condemned
> to be free." We are completely free at every moment, absolutely
> everything about us is a product of our own choices, and we are
> responsible for each and every detail of our lives.
>
> ...When you think about it, the tremendous possibilities that come from
> being as free as Sartre envisions us to be are truly thrilling. Think
> of that "I-can-accomplish-anything-I-put-my-mind-to" feeling. But
> Sartre sees freedom as so fundamental and so pervasive that the
> prospect is not all upbeat. A full awareness of our responsibility for
> each and every facet of our lives can be troubling. This much freedom
> ultimately makes us anxious. As Sartre puts it, we are "condemned to be
> free."
>
> This phrase-"condemned to be free"-suggests a variety of difficulties.
> First, we have no choice in the matter. We never asked to be born. Yet
> here we are, thrown into a situation that requires endless, often
> terrifying decisions about everything in our lives.
>
> The phrase also conveys the idea that we are trapped-sentenced to a
> situation we can never break out of. Even if we want to avoid freely
> fashioning our life, we can't. "I bear the whole responsibility without
> being able, whatever I do, to tear myself away from this responsibility
> for an instant," Sartre explains in Being and Nothingness. "For I am
> responsible," he continues, "for my very desire of fleeing
> responsibilities. To make myself passive in the world, to refuse to act
> upon things and upon Others is still to choose myself." Whether we go
> our own way, go along with what everyone else does, or try to do
> nothing, we choose that course of action. We must accept the
> responsibility for absolutely everything we do, including ducking out
> on our responsibilities. We always have the choice. We always have an
> option. We always have control. We can never escape it.
>
> "Man is condemned to be free," writes Sartre:
>
> "...because he did not create himself, yet, in other respects is free;
> because, once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything
> he does. The existentialist does not believe in the power of passion.
> He will never agree that a sweeping passion is a ravaging torrent which
> fatally leads a man to certain acts and is therefore an excuse. He
> thinks that man is responsible for his passion."
>
> "The existentialist does not think that man is going to help himself by
> finding in the world some omen by which to orient himself. Because he
> thinks that man will interpret the omen to suit himself. Therefore, he
> thinks that man, with no support and no aid, is condemned every moment
> to invent man."
> --"Existentialism"
>
> Responsibility and "Bad Faith"
>
> Freedom, of course, automatically carries with it the fact of
> responsibility. If you freely choose to do something, you are
> responsible for your action and its consequences. In Sartre's scheme,
> we must feel responsible all the time.
>
> That can be quite a punishment, especially when most of us regularly
> try to avoid taking full responsibility for our lives. Being
> responsible for making solid, authentic choices at every juncture is
> hard to handle. Yet when we choose not to do it, Sartre accuses us of
> acting in "bad faith"-lying to ourselves about our responsibility.
>
> Discovering philosophy / Thomas I. White. --Brief ed.
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0135080037/
>
>> I'm assuming that "Rand's protagonist" is a direct reference to the
>> character of Roark. According to Rand, the basis of capitalism is neither
>> "to fulfill the needs of customers" nor to "advance the general welfare."
>>
>> Is therefore, Mark Skousen misguided in his view? Does Rand contradict a
>> basic premise of laissez-faire capitalism? If so, how? I personally don't
>> see how this can be true as the following paragraph from Wikipedia
>> demonstrates;
>>
>> one might argue that Skousen's criticism is beside the point: "In all proper
>> relationships there is no sacrifice of anyone to anyone. An architect needs
>> clients, but he does not subordinate his work to their wishes. They need
>> him, but they do not order a house just to give him a commission. Men
>> exchange their work by free, mutual consent to mutual advantage when their
>> personal interests agree and they both desire the exchange. If they do not
>> desire it, they are not forced to deal with each other. They seek further.
>> This is the only possible form of relationship between equals. Anything else
>> is a relation of slave to master, or victim to executioner."
>>
>>
>> Views ladies & gentlemen please!
>>
>>
>> James
no comments
diggit! del.icio.us! reddit!