The Fountainhead
James
with those who have philosophical views on this work. Reading the entity for
The Fountainhead on Wikipedia;
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.
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
tg
Yes of course. An excellent example is taxation, where the individual
exchanges taxes for the benefit of living in some particular state.
Both parties enter into this voluntarily; the state establishes the
benefits that one can receive, and the individual is free to seek a
different state with different benefits.
-tg
Daniel T.
> 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;
I haven't read the book, but I did read "Atlas Shrugged" and from what I
read of the Cliffsnotes, the same themes are expounded on in both books.
One thing I noticed is Rand's seeming hatred of interpersonal skills.
> 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.
>
> 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;
The best part about writing fiction is that you can create your world
however you want. You can make people successful who never would be in
real life.
Rand's protagonists tend to refuse to accept that they are part of and
dependent on a larger organism (the society in which they live.) For an
architect to succeed, he must have both the "genius" of a Roark and the
understanding of the clients desires as explained by Mr. Skousen.
> 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."
I think just the opposite. In all proper relationships there is equal
sacrifice by all parties.
--
To send me email, put "sheltie" in the subject.
James
Surely if the Client
is unhappy with what the Architect produces - the Client can find another
Architect. This
is all assuming that the Architect takes on the Client.
James
"Daniel T." <dani...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:daniel_t-6E505C...@news.west.earthlink.net...
Daniel T.
> What sacrifice does a Client make in a Client-Architect
> relationship? Surely if the Client is unhappy with what the
> Architect produces - the Client can find another Architect. This is
> all assuming that the Architect takes on the Client.
First is his money and/or time, whether happy with the product or not,
he still pays for the output. Second, and just as important, he must
accept that he doesn't know the architect's job. The client, for
example, may want contradictory things and he is forced to give.
That's the main point, in a partnership, any partnership, there is
compromise; neither party can have exactly what he wants. Rand seemed to
think that if one just did what he wants to do, he will succeed. No
compromises and damn everyone else's views. That works maybe for
alligators because they have no social structure, no concept of
community. It doesn't work for humans because we need each-other to
survive.
tg
> "James" <james...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > What sacrifice does a Client make in a Client-Architect
> > relationship? Surely if the Client is unhappy with what the
> > Architect produces - the Client can find another Architect. This is
> > all assuming that the Architect takes on the Client.
>
> First is his money and/or time, whether happy with the product or not,
> he still pays for the output. Second, and just as important, he must
> accept that he doesn't know the architect's job. The client, for
> example, may want contradictory things and he is forced to give.
>
You miss the point. If the deal is made, then neither has made a
'sacrifice' because each one feels that the value of what he gets is
equal to the value of what he gives. If one didn't feel that way, he
would walk away from the deal. See also my earlier response for the
example of taxation.
-tg
Immortalist
> 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.
>
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/
Daniel T.
>
> You miss the point. If the deal is made, then neither has made a
> 'sacrifice' because each one feels that the value of what he gets is
> equal to the value of what he gives. If one didn't feel that way, he
> would walk away from the deal.
The one thing that Howard Roark doesn't want to do is "deal" with
anybody. I think it fair to say that in the book, Roark wants to succeed
without having to make any deals at all, never agreeing to do what
someone else wants.
I don't think deal making is the point in her books. I think Rand was
actually "anti-deal", a deal by it's nature is an agreement between
parties to limit their own freedoms; something Rand was very much
against.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
tg wrote:
> Yes of course.
Crap, you know nothing of Rand's philosophy.
> An excellent example is taxation, where the individual
> exchanges taxes for the benefit of living in some particular state.
> Both parties enter into this voluntarily;
Utter fucking crap, if you get born under the threat of a gun then how
the fuck are your actions volunteered?
MG
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
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;
There's a mistake, but anyway not the subject.
To understand The Fountainhead you also need to understand what Rand
means by morality and man living for his own sake, i.e. the ideas which
underpin The Fountainhead.
Selfishness can only remain a moral virtue if and while it does not
contradict the virtue of independence.
Even that needs further explanation but can wait.
Each of Rand's values and her virtues are directly linked and are in
harmony with each other, they have to be because contradictions are
required as the destroyer of all and any things in existence, including
man's ideas.
> According to Rand, the basis of capitalism is neither "to fulfill the needs of customers"
> nor to "advance the general welfare."
That's correct, capitalism can certainly result in "fulfilling the
needs of the customer" and it can result in the "the advancement of
general welfare" however that is NOT the justification for Rand's
position on capitalism.
Rand's position on capitalism stems from no other position than her
position on her standard of all moral values.
*Human life as the standard of all moral values* and of course from
Rand's *non-initiation of force principle* i.e. that all actions
between all adults ought be voluntary, which is in harmony with man's
own life as his own standard of all moral values.
Michael Gordge
tg
I've always suspected that you were under 18 years old. Or is the age
of adulthood different down there? Here in the USA, you are free to
leave the country as soon as you reach that age---before that you are
under the legal control of your parents, of course, although it is
sometimes possible to become emancipated a bit earlier.
-tg
> MG
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
tg wrote:
> I've always suspected that you were under 18 years old. Or is the age
> of adulthood different down there? Here in the USA, you are free to
> leave the country as soon as you reach that age---
If you are not forced to pay tax, then why do YOU (you can NOT speak
for anyone but YOU) need to be threatened, ultimately with death, The
Rule of Law, to make you pay it?
Michael Gordge
tg
> tg wrote:
>
> > I've always suspected that you were under 18 years old. Or is the age
> > of adulthood different down there? Here in the USA, you are free to
> > leave the country as soon as you reach that age---
>
> If you are not forced to pay tax,
Landlords do not force people to pay rent, and states do not force
people to pay tax.
If you don't wish to pay, then you can just leave. If you stay, you are
a squatter and subject to eviction, and if you resist then force may
be involved, but you have initiated it.
-tg
>
>
> Michael Gordge
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
tg wrote:
>
> Landlords do not force people to pay rent,
That has nothing to do with the subject of the state stealing. And if
you were a landlord or a tennent who gets behind with your rent, you
would have a different pov.
> and states do not force
> people to pay tax.
People have been forced to pay fines and or have spent time in jail for
failing to hand over the results of their energy and often for nothing
or very little in return.
Why the fuck you support the idea of giving the state a $1.00 for
$0.30c worth of fucked up statist indoctrination of your child, when
you should have had the free choice and given that $1.00 directly to a
teacher of YOUR choice, is something I will never understand of the
dopey socialists, it is after all YOURS and NO the state's child.
Michael Gordge
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
Daniel T. wrote:
> The one thing that Howard Roark doesn't want to do is "deal" with
> anybody.
He wanted to defend what was his.
> I think it fair to say that in the book, Roark wants to succeed
> without having to make any deals at all, never agreeing to do what
> someone else wants.
Roark had his price as a principle and what is so bad about that?
> I don't think deal making is the point in her books.
Voluntary association is her point, deals are the results of voluntary
association, the opposite is called extortion.
> I think Rand was
> actually "anti-deal",
Which shows you are not thinking about Rand
> a deal by it's nature is an agreement between
> parties to limit their own freedoms; something Rand was very much
> against.
Nonsense, a deal is a voluntary agreement and that IS the point of
Rand's Roark.
MG
tg
> tg wrote:
> >
> > Landlords do not force people to pay rent,
>
> That has nothing to do with the subject of the state
The state owns the territory, and the state decides who gets to live
there. That's not open to question, so the state is in all respects
your landlord.
>
> > and states do not force
> > people to pay tax.
>
> People have been forced to pay fines and or have spent time in jail
If you fail to pay rent, the landlord may evict you and also sue you to
recover delinquent payment. Fines are part of the recovery process---or
don't you think you should pay court costs when you lose a civil case?
If you place people in jail, that is equivalent to eviction, since they
are denied the benefits of the state. Indeed it is generous since it is
only temporary---most landlords won't take you back if you are a
deadbeat.
If you don't like the apartment you are renting, and you don't feel
that you are getting your money's worth, then you move to a place with
a better value. That's the way the market works. Here in the US, people
move from state to state to get a more suitable match all the time.
People also go and live in other countries all the time.
>
>
> Michael Gordge
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
tg wrote:
> The state owns the territory,
The libertarian says they shouldn't
> and the state decides who gets to live
> there.
And the libertarian says, the only moral and legitimate role of the
state is to provide protection to its citizens, not to be the judge of
which peaceful human being owns what nor where they should live.
> That's not open to question, so the state is in all respects
> your landlord.
And the libertarian says, "and you go fuck yourself Karl Marx, because
that system was tried and didn't work you for."
Michael Gordge
tg
> tg wrote:
>
> > The state owns the territory,
>
> The libertarian says they shouldn't
>
> > and the state decides who gets to live
> > there.
>
> And the libertarian says, the only moral and legitimate role of the
> state is to provide protection to its citizens,
And the state gets to decide who are its citizens, just like the
landlord gets to decide who are his tenants.
>not to be the judge of
> which peaceful human being owns what nor where they should live.
>
So what about ewe, since ewe, not 'the Libertarian', are the only one
who can decide for ewe?
Do you think any Indonesian that wants to come and live in ewer country
should be able to do that? Regardless of how much money or skill they
have?
> > That's not open to question, so the state is in all respects
> > your landlord.
>
> And the libertarian says, "and you go fuck yourself Karl Marx, because
> that system was tried and didn't work you for."
>
I thought we were talking about taxes---what does that have to do with
Karl Marx? Do you think any country that has taxes got the idea from
Karl Marx?
>
> Michael Gordge
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
tg wrote:
> And the state..
Are you fucking deaf as well as stupid?
> Do you think
Unlike you yes, I think a lot, your turn might come one day, if you let
it.
> I thought we were talking about taxes---what does that have to do with
> Karl Marx?
Everything, human sacrifice as a means to an end, whether in the name
of godisms, communism, tribalism, fascism, socialism matters not a
diddly squat.
> Do you think any country that has taxes got the idea from
> Karl Marx?
The idea that man is a sacrifical animal, a means to an end, rather
than the end in himself, is a Karl Marx idea yes thats right, well
done.
Michael Gordge
jmh
> James wrote:
> > 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.
> >
>
> The invisible hand: "Every individual...generally, indeed, neither
> intends to promote the public interest,...
The problem with that literary critism is that the two
juxtaposed philosphies were not economic in that book
What was being contracts and battling one another in
the book was individualism and collectivism in mentality.
There'a absolutely nothing anti free-market with a producer
standing by his or her ideals and not compromising their
personal standards. Don't forget, Roark nearly starved
first time around and at no point did he insist that
any consumer must be provided to consume his product.
jmh
Russ Rose
"James" <james...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:p7H3h.5966$Zy3....@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>I saw Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead" not so long ago
Saw? The movie was nothing close to the book.
What usually gets lost in the discussion of objectivism is the "creativity".
People do not hire Roarke to design buildings. They hire him to create
buildings. What he was defending is now commonly known as intellectual
property, the product of a creative mind.
Immortalist
jmh wrote:
> "Immortalist" <reanima...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > James wrote:
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > The invisible hand: "Every individual...generally, indeed, neither
> > intends to promote the public interest,...
>
> The problem with that literary critism is that the two
> juxtaposed philosphies were not economic in that book
> What was being contracts and battling one another in
> the book was individualism and collectivism in mentality.
>
Not a bad observation and I agree. But there are many other
contradictions in the elements that are in the context of this debate.
There is the socialist existentialism and freedom and there was some
other seemingly unrelated subjects. I was trying to expand the range of
subjects this subject may dip into and theyn eliminate some and point
out particular features of others, as you did well here, but, I covered
that to ?
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.
Daniel T.
> 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.
OK, I have now seen the movie (not exactly the same as the book perhaps,
but Ann Rand did write the screenplay.) All you say above is what we are
supposed to believe about Roark, however this is the same man who chose
to loose his individuality for a time in the strip mine.
I used to think Rand was something of an egoist and I'm very much an
egoist, but Roark is painted as a man who isn't even willing to
accommodate others when it's in his best interest to do so. I'm
beginning to realize the fundamental differences between egoism and
Randianism.
The more I'm exposed to Rand, the more it seems that she wasn't a fan of
anyone who worked with people... Educators, consensus builders, managers
and sales people seem to have been the enemy to her.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
Daniel T. wrote:
> supposed to believe about Roark, however this is the same man who chose
> to loose his individuality for a time in the strip mine.
Oh what utter crap. FFS just because someone chooses to spend their
time and energy in a mine means nothing of the sort, what a twit.
> The more I'm exposed to Rand, the more it seems that she wasn't a fan of
> anyone who worked with people...
Oh so you're still just looking at the pictures through your Kantian
fogged glasses.
Michael Gordge
Topaz
"The fight which Fascist Italy waged against Jewry's three
principal weapons, the profound reasons for which may not of been
consciously understood (though I do not believe this myself) furnishes
the best proof that the poison fangs of that Power which transcends
all State boundaries are being drawn, even though in an indirect way.
The prohibition of Freemasonry and secret societies, the suppression
of the supranational Press and the definite abolition of Marxism,
together with the steadily increasing consolidation of the Fascist
concept of the State--all this will enable the Italian Government, in
the course of some years, to advance more and more the interests of
the Italian people without paying any attention to the hissing of the
Jewish world-hydra.
"The English situation is not so favorable. In that country
which has 'the freest democracy' the Jew dictates his will, almost
unrestrained but indirectly, through his influence on public opinion."
http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.ihr.org/
jmh
I was primarily reacting to the criticism attributed to
Skousen. It's true but I'm not sure it's relevant to
the book -- Atlas Shrugged got more into the role of
marekts in society.
I'm sure there was a lot I didn't see in this thread--
not been lurking here for some time so ...
Your comments fo raise another question in my mind. You
remember the old quip of hobbgobbins and consistency I'm
sure. Should, perhapes even *can*, social theory and
ideology everr be truely consistent? We cannot even
see to get that in physical sciences when you try to
reconciles everything at the global level, and physical
universe is much simply than that of men's minds and
relations. Certainly well to the side of the thread though!
jmh
jmh
> "Immortalist" <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> OK, I have now seen the movie (not exactly the same as the book perhaps,
> but Ann Rand did write the screenplay.) All you say above is what we are
> supposed to believe about Roark, however this is the same man who chose
> to loose his individuality for a time in the strip mine.
Was that how you took that? Perhaps that was the finer
implication of the film (been way too long to recall
from the book but I did see the movie just recently as
well). I took the bit as if he couldn't pursue his lifes
interest then any job was okay but not that he had abandoned
or lost his individuality when his architecture business
went down.
We it only me that was struck to the general texture and
fell of the movie that it could have been one of the
old socialist/communist probaganda film?
jmh
jmh
> Daniel T. wrote:
> > supposed to believe about Roark, however this is the same man who chose
> > to loose his individuality for a time in the strip mine.
>
> Oh what utter crap. FFS just because someone chooses to spend their
> time and energy in a mine means nothing of the sort, what a twit.
I don't know. It might be an intereesting take. He was
presented as an anonomous person -- admittedly one that
stood out in the "crowd" apparently. I'm wondering how
much Rand might have equated between the self and the
ability to exrpress one's self in their choosen work.
That was part of the theme--if he compromised
his visions of the design then he lost someothing
of himself.
That's not the market view or Smith's invisible
hand concept. It's got more the flovor or marxist
market alienation but in this case it's the alienantion
from the consumer side not theproduction/capital side.
jmh
Daniel T.
> "Daniel T." <dani...@earthlink.net> writes:
>> "Immortalist" <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> OK, I have now seen the movie (not exactly the same as the book
>> perhaps, but Ann Rand did write the screenplay.) All you say above
>> is what we are supposed to believe about Roark, however this is the
>> same man who chose to loose his individuality for a time in the
>> strip mine.
>
> Was that how you took that? Perhaps that was the finer implication
> of the film (been way too long to recall from the book but I did
> see the movie just recently as well). I took the bit as if he
> that he had abandoned or lost his individuality when his
> architecture business went down.
His architectural style is what made him unique, and he was forced to
abandon it. He chose to abandon it by quitting since his only other
option would have been to abandon it by changing his style. Of course,
because it was a work of fiction, he "won the lottery" so to speak and
got to eventually re-enter the profession.
Roark was willing to work for anybody who asked and for any price they
cared to name. His only requirement was that they didn't change the
building's appearance. Some might say that he stood by his principles,
but he didn't stand for any sort of objective truth. He simply refused
to negotiate on this one subjective issue. On the internet there is no
end of people with a steadfast conviction of their beliefs, people like
Ed Conrad and Mike Gordge for example. To me, that isn't a virtue in and
of itself.
Something else, when he turned down the the commission of the Manhattan
Bank Building, he made no attempt to negotiate. He could have offered to
reduce his fee if they would have accepted his design "as is". Maybe
that was just a movie simplification, but given Rand's apparent bias
against negotiating in general, I find it significant.
> Was it only me that was struck to the general texture and fell of
> the movie that it could have been one of the old socialist/communist
> propaganda film?
Well it was a propaganda film made around the same time... :-)
Michael Price
> 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.
> >
>
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.
Michael Price
> mikeg...@xtra.co.nz writes:
>
> > Daniel T. wrote:
> > > supposed to believe about Roark, however this is the same man who chose
> > > to loose his individuality for a time in the strip mine.
> >
> > Oh what utter crap. FFS just because someone chooses to spend their
> > time and energy in a mine means nothing of the sort, what a twit.
>
>
> I don't know. It might be an intereesting take. He was
> presented as an anonomous person -- admittedly one that
> stood out in the "crowd" apparently. I'm wondering how
> much Rand might have equated between the self and the
> ability to exrpress one's self in their choosen work.
Even at the quarry (not mine techinically) he did good work and
while it was not work he would have chosen it was work that he
could be proud of. If he had been other than what he was he could
have walked into half the architectural firms in New York and got
better paid for half the hours and one tenth the labour. That's what
made him different from almost everyone else.
Sphere
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;
>
> 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.
>
Sphere
Anthem had a bit of a point. The rest of what Rand had
to say was pure shit. On the political compass she was
to the right of Hitler and little more libertarian than the
current Libertarian (sic) Party.
Look up "political compass" on google and take the test.
Gandhi was a right-wing authoritarian. (I sit in the entreme
bottom left corner of their graph.)
---
No esszence. No permanence. No perfection.
Daniel T.
> jmh wrote:
>> mikeg...@xtra.co.nz writes:
>>> Daniel T. wrote:
>>>
>>>> supposed to believe about Roark, however this is the same man who
>>>> chose to loose his individuality for a time in the strip mine.
>>>
>>> Oh what utter crap. FFS just because someone chooses to spend
>>
>> I don't know. It might be an interesting take. He was presented as
>> an anonymous person -- admittedly one that stood out in the "crowd"
>> apparently. I'm wondering how much Rand might have equated between
>> work.
>
> Even at the quarry (not mine technically) he did good work and
> while it was not work he would have chosen it was work that he could
> be proud of.
He refused to even consider societal norms and because of that, he
couldn't practice his first choice of profession.
The other characters in the story either embraced societal norms or
detested them. To Roark's credit, he did neither. However, would he have
fought so hard against any other sort of natural obstacle? Would he, for
example, have insisted on building a tower in Florida that couldn't
withstand the high winds of a hurricane? Of course not; yet the society
in which he lived was a natural obstacle that he simply refused to adapt
to.
Imagine Roark working in the quarry because nature wouldn't allow him to
build an upside down pyramid. That would be preposterous, and yet the
ebb and flow of society is a force of nature too.
Daniel T.
> Look up "political compass" on google and take the test.
> Gandhi was a right-wing authoritarian. (I sit in the entreme
> bottom left corner of their graph.)
I looked on the site, http://www.politicalcompass.org/ and it put Gandhi
in the lower left quadrant (liberal leftist) so maybe I'm looking at a
different compass that you are?
In most of these sorts of tests, I score in the leftist/libertarian
quadrant, but not extreme in either case.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
Topaz wrote:
> Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
Socialist, communist, fascist, tribalist, christianist they all = Humam
Sacrifice
Capitalism is the only and the only nonsacrificial moral politcal
system why?
Because you can still be a silly parasitical socialist in a capitalist
society, that's if you can peacefully persuade your hosts, the reverse
is not possible.
Michael Gordge
NOTE How's the bum Toerag Topaz? Still hurting?
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
Daniel T. wrote:
Nothing but more leftist crap
Here try this political compass
George Dance
In what way are social norms a 'natural obstacle'? In F., for example,
at the beginning of the story virtually everyone wanted Greek-style
buildings. But there was nothing natural about that - as, by the end,
virtually everyone wanted boxes.
> Imagine Roark working in the quarry because nature wouldn't allow him to
> build an upside down pyramid. That would be preposterous, and yet the
> ebb and flow of society is a force of nature too.
The fact that humans live in societies, each with norms, can be called
a 'fact of nature.' But that doesn't make any particular set of norms
'natural' or 'unnatural'. Norms reduce to values and preferences,
which look purely subjective.
Daniel T.
> Daniel T. wrote:
>
>> He refused to even consider societal norms and because of that, he
>> couldn't practice his first choice of profession.
>>
>> The other characters in the story either embraced societal norms or
>> detested them. To Roark's credit, he did neither. However, would he
>> have fought so hard against any other sort of natural obstacle?
>> Would he, for example, have insisted on building a tower in Florida
>> that couldn't withstand the high winds of a hurricane? Of course
>> not; yet the society in which he lived was a natural obstacle that
>> he simply refused to adapt to.
>
> In what way are social norms a 'natural obstacle'?
Below, you agree that social norms can be called a "fact of nature", and
that's what I meant by "natural" in the above paragraph. They were an
obstacle because they prevented Roark from doing what he loved.
>> Imagine Roark working in the quarry because nature wouldn't allow
>> him to build an upside down pyramid. That would be preposterous,
>> and yet the ebb and flow of society is a force of nature too.
>
> The fact that humans live in societies, each with norms, can be
> called a 'fact of nature.' But that doesn't make any particular set
> of norms 'natural' or 'unnatural'. Norms reduce to values and
> preferences, which look purely subjective.
Agreed, but my point still stands.
George Dance
Daniel T. wrote:
> "George Dance" <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > Daniel T. wrote:
> >
> >> He refused to even consider societal norms and because of that, he
> >> couldn't practice his first choice of profession.
> >>
> >> The other characters in the story either embraced societal norms or
> >> detested them. To Roark's credit, he did neither. However, would he
> >> have fought so hard against any other sort of natural obstacle?
> >> Would he, for example, have insisted on building a tower in Florida
> >> that couldn't withstand the high winds of a hurricane? Of course
> >> not; yet the society in which he lived was a natural obstacle that
> >> he simply refused to adapt to.
> >
> > In what way are social norms a 'natural obstacle'?
>
> Below, you agree that social norms can be called a "fact of nature", and
> that's what I meant by "natural" in the above paragraph.
I said it's a "fact of nature" that societies have norms (just as
people have preferences). But it's not a fact of nature what norms a
society has, any more than it's a fact of nature what preferences a
person has.
> They were an
> obstacle because they prevented Roark from doing what he loved.
Only temporarily. (That was one of the conflicts in the story, of
course.) In the end, he had a rich client, a bunch of smaller ones,
and a word-of-muth reputation.
> >> Imagine Roark working in the quarry because nature wouldn't allow
> >> him to build an upside down pyramid. That would be preposterous,
> >> and yet the ebb and flow of society is a force of nature too.
> >
> > The fact that humans live in societies, each with norms, can be
> > called a 'fact of nature.' But that doesn't make any particular set
> > of norms 'natural' or 'unnatural'. Norms reduce to values and
> > preferences, which look purely subjective.
>
> Agreed, but my point still stands.
I already pointed out where your analogy fails. 'Facts of nature' like
hurricanes in Florida are objective facts that a person can do nothing
about, but has to adapt to. Social norms are not 'facts of nature'
like that, as they can be changed. They're immune from change only to
the degree that they're immune from challenge.
George Dance
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;
>
> 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.
>
customer exactly what the customer wants, or you don't get the sale.
What made Roark different, of course, was that he was willing to forego
sales.
> 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."
Indeed, if Skousen means anything but a *moral duty to put the
customer's needs or wants before his own, his criticism is beside the
point. And if he's not...
The /Foutainhead contains a character who did always put the customer's
needs and wants before his own: newspaper tycoon Gail Wynand. Wynand's
motivations were money and power - he wanted to 'run things' - and he
didn't care what went into his NY paper, the /Banner, to serve that
end. In consequence, when at the end of the book he found something he
cared enough to fight for in his newspaper, his circulation was
decimated and he wound up having to close down.
george...@yahoo.ca
The problem with the movie may have been a Naturalist director and
leading actor trying to film a Romantic script, that they didn't
understand and weren't weren't all that comfortable with. (Witness the
climactic courtroom scene, where Gary Cooper clearly has no idea how to
deliver his lines.) Vidor did his best - lots of effective use of
shadows, et al - but the result tended toward melodrama.
Topaz
on December 10, 1940:
"In this Anglo-French world there exists, as it were, democracy, which
means the rule of the people by the people. Now the people must
possess some means of giving expression to their thoughts or their
wishes. Examining this problem more closely, we see that the people
themselves have originally no convictions of their own. Their
convictions are formed, of course, just as everywhere else. The
decisive question is who enlightens the people, who educates them? In
those countries, it is actually capital that rules; that is, nothing
more than a clique of a few hundred men who possess untold wealth and,
as a consequence of the peculiar structure of their national life, are
more or less independent and free. They say: 'Here we have liberty.'
By this they mean, above all, an uncontrolled economy, and by an
uncontrolled economy, the freedom not only to acquire capital but to
make absolutely free use of it. That means freedom from national
control or control by the people both in the acquisition of capital
and in its employment. This is really what they mean when they speak
of liberty. These capitalists create their own press and then speak of
the 'freedom of the press.'
In reality, every one of the newspapers has a master, and in every
case this master is the capitalist, the owner. This master, not the
editor, is the one who directs the policy of the paper. If the editor
tries to write other than what suits the master, he is ousted the next
day. This press, which is the absolutely submissive and characterless
slave of the owners, molds public opinion. Public opinion thus
mobilized by them is, in its turn, split up into political parties.
The difference between these parties is as small as it formerly was in
Germany. You know them, of course - the old parties. They were always
one and the same. In Britain matters are usually so arranged that
families are divided up, one member being a conservative, another a
liberal, and a third belonging to the labor party. Actually, all three
sit together as members of the family, decide upon their common
attitude and determine it. A further point is that the 'elected
people' actually form a community which operates and controls all
these organizations. For this reason, the opposition in England is
really always the same, for on all essential matters in which the
opposition has to make itself felt, the parties are always in
agreement. They have one and the same conviction and through the
medium of the press mold public opinion along corresponding lines. One
might well believe that in these countries of liberty and riches, the
people must possess an unlimited degree of prosperity. But no! On the
contrary, it is precisely in these countries that the distress of the
masses is greater than anywhere else. Such is the case in 'rich
Britain.'
She controls sixteen million square miles. In India, for example, a
hundred million colonial workers with a wretched standard of living
must labor for her. One might think, perhaps, that at least in England
itself every person must have his share of these riches. By no means!
In that country class distinction is the crassest imaginable. There is
poverty - incredible poverty - on the one side, and equally incredible
wealth on the other. They have not solved a single problem. The
workmen of that country which possesses more than one-sixth of the
globe and of the world's natural resources dwell in misery, and the
masses of the people are poorly clad.. In a country which ought to
have more than enough bread and every sort of fruit, we find millions
of the lower classes who have not even enough to fill their stomachs,
and go about hungry. A nation which could provide work for the whole
world must acknowledge the fact that it cannot even abolish
unemployment at home. For decades this rich Britain has had two and a
half million unemployed; rich America, ten to thirteen millions, year
after year; France, six, seven, and eight hundred thousand. Well, my
fellow-countrymen - what then are we to say about ourselves?
It is self-evident that where this democracy rules, the people as such
are not taken into consideration at all. The only thing that matters
is the existence of a few hundred gigantic capitalists who own all the
factories and their stock and, through them, control the people. The
masses of the people do not interest them in the least. They are
interested in them just as were our bourgeois parties in former times
- only when elections are being held, when they need votes. Otherwise,
the life of the masses is a matter of complete indifference to them.
To this must be added the difference in education. Is it not ludicrous
to hear a member of the British Labor Party - who, of course, as a
member of the Opposition is officially paid by the government - say:
'When the war is over, we will do something in social respects'?
It is the members of Parliament who are the directors of the business
concerns - just as used to be the case with us. But we have abolished
all that. A member of the Reichstag cannot belong to a Board of
Directors, except as a purely honorary member. He is prohibited from
accepting any emolument, financial or otherwise. This is not the case
in other countries.
They reply: 'That is why our form of government is sacred to us.' I
can well believe it, for that form of government certainly pays very
well.. But whether it is sacred to the mass of the people as well is
another matter.
The people as a whole definitely suffer. I do not consider it possible
in the long run for one man to work and toil for a whole year in
return for ridiculous wages, while another jumps into an express train
once a year and pockets enormous sums. Such conditions are a disgrace.
On the other hand, we National Socialists equally oppose the theory
that all men are equals. Today, when a man of genius makes some
astounding invention and enormously benefits his country by his
brains, we pay him his due, for he has really accomplished something
and been of use to his country. However, we hope to make it impossible
for idle drones to inhabit this country.
I could continue to cite examples indefinitely. The fact remains that
two worlds are face to face with one another. Our opponents are quite
right when they say: 'Nothing can reconcile us to the National
Socialist world.' How could a narrow-minded capitalist ever agree to
my principles? It would be easier for the Devil to go to church and
cross himself with holy water than for these people to comprehend the
ideas which are accepted facts to us today. But we have solved our
problems.
To take another instance where we are condemned: They claim to be
fighting for the maintenance of the gold standard as the currency
basis. That I can well believe, for the gold is in their hands. We,
too, once had gold, but it was stolen and extorted from us. When I
came to power, it was not malice which made me abandon the gold
standard. Germany simply had no gold left. Consequently, quitting the
gold standard presented no difficulties, for it is always easy to part
with what one does not have. We had no gold. We had no foreign
exchange. They had all been stolen and extorted from us during the
previous fifteen years. But, my fellow countrymen, I did not regret
it, for we have constructed our economic system on a wholly different
basis. In our eyes, gold is not of value in itself. It is only an
agent by which nations can be suppressed and dominated.
When I took over the government, I had only one hope on which to
build, namely, the efficiency and ability of the German nation and the
German workingman; the intelligence of our inventors, engineers,
technicians, chemists, and so forth. I built on the strength which
animates our economic system. One simple question faced me: Are we to
perish because we have no gold; am I to believe in a phantom which
spells our destruction? I championed the opposite opinion: Even though
we have no gold, we have capacity for work.
The German capacity for work is our gold and our capital, and with
this gold I can compete successfully with any power in the world. We
want to live in houses which have to be built. Hence, the workers must
build them, and the raw materials required must be procured by work.
My whole economic system has been built up on the conception of work.
We have solved our problems while, amazingly enough, the capitalist
countries and their currencies have suffered bankruptcy.
Sterling can find no market today. Throw it at any one and he will
step aside to avoid being hit. But our Reichsmark, which is backed by
no gold, has remained stable. Why? It has no gold cover; it is backed
by you and by your work. You have helped me to keep the mark stable.
German currency, with no gold coverage, is worth more today than gold
itself. It signifies unceasing production. This we owe to the German
farmer, who has worked from daybreak till nightfall. This we owe to
the German worker, who has given us his whole strength. The whole
problem has been solved in one instant, as if by magic.
My dear friends, if I had stated publicly eight or nine years ago: 'In
seven or eight years the problem of how to provide work for the
unemployed will be solved, and the problem then will be where to find
workers,' I should have harmed my cause. Every one would have
declared: 'The man is mad. It is useless to talk to him, much less to
support him. Nobody should vote for him. He is a fantastic creature.'
Today, however, all this has come true. Today, the only question for
us is where to find workers. That, my fellow countrymen, is the
blessing which work brings.
Work alone can create new work; money cannot create work. Work alone
can create values, values with which to reward those who work. The
work of one man makes it possible for another to live and continue to
work. And when we have mobilized the working capacity of our people to
its utmost, each individual worker will receive more and more of the
world's goods.
We have incorporated seven million unemployed into our economic
system; we have transformed another six millions from part-time into
full-time workers; we are even working overtime. And all this is paid
for in cash in Reichsmarks which maintained their value in peacetime.
In wartime we had to ration its purchasing capacity, not in order to
devalue it, but simply to earmark a portion of our industry for war
production to guide us to victory in the struggle for the future of
Germany...
One thing is certain, my fellow-countrymen: All in all, we have today
a state with a different economic and political orientation from that
of the Western democracies.
Well, it must now be made possible for the British worker to travel.
It is remarkable that they should at last hit upon the idea that
traveling should be something not for millionaires alone, but for the
people too. In this country, the problem was solved some time ago. In
the other countries - as is shown by their whole economic structure -
the selfishness of a relatively small stratum rules under the mask of
democracy. This stratum is neither checked nor controlled by anyone.
It is therefore understandable if an Englishman says: 'We do not want
our world to be subject to any sort of collapse.' Quite so. The
English know full well that their Empire is not menaced by us. But
they say quite truthfully: 'If the ideas that are popular in Germany
are not completely eliminated, they might become popular among our own
people, and that is the danger. We do not want this.' It would do no
harm if they did become popular there, but these people are just as
narrow-minded as many once were in Germany. In this respect they
prefer to remain bound to their conservative methods. They do not wish
to depart from them, and do not conceal the fact.
They say, 'The German methods do not suit us at all.'
And what are these methods? You know, my comrades, that I have
destroyed nothing in Germany. I have always proceeded very carefully,
because I believe - as I have already said - that we cannot afford to
wreck anything. I am proud that the Revolution of 1933 was brought to
pass without breaking a single windowpane. Nevertheless, we have
wrought enormous changes.
I wish to put before you a few basic facts: The first is that in the
capitalistic democratic world the most important principle of economy
is that the people exist for trade and industry, and that these in
turn exist for capital. We have reversed this principle by making
capital exist for trade and industry, and trade and industry exist for
the people. In other words, the people come first. Everything else is
but a means to this end. When an economic system is not capable of
feeding and clothing a people, then it is bad, regardless of whether a
few hundred people say: 'As far as I am concerned it is good,
excellent; my dividends are splendid.'
However, the dividends do not interest me at all. Here we have drawn
the line. They may then retort: 'Well, look here, that is just what we
mean. You jeopardize liberty.'
Yes, certainly, we jeopardize the liberty to profiteer at the expense
of the community, and, if necessary, we even abolish it. British
capitalists, to mention only one instance, can pocket dividends of 76,
80, 95, 140, and even 160 per cent from their armament industry.
Naturally they say: 'If the German methods grow apace and should prove
victorious, this sort of thing will stop.'
They are perfectly right. I should never tolerate such a state of
affairs. In my eyes, a 6 per cent dividend is sufficient. Even from
this 6 per cent we deduct one-half and, as for the rest, we must have
definite proof that it is invested in the interest of the country as a
whole. In other words, no individual has the right to dispose
arbitrarily of money which ought to be invested for the good of the
country. If he disposes of it sensibly, well and good; if not, the
National Socialist state will intervene.
To take another instance, besides dividends there are the so-called
directors' fees. You probably have no idea how appallingly active a
board of directors is. Once a year its members have to make a journey.
They have to go to the station, get into a first-class compartment and
travel to some place or other. They arrive at an appointed office at
about 10 or 11 A.M. There they must listen to a report. When the
report has been read, they must listen to a few comments on it. They
may be kept in their seats until 1 P.M. or even 2. Shortly after 2
o'clock they rise from their chairs and set out on their homeward
journey, again, of course, traveling first class. It is hardly
surprising that they claim 3,000, 4,000, or even 5,000 as compensation
for this: Our directors formerly did the same - for what a lot of time
it costs them! Such effort had to be made worth while! Of course, we
have got rid of all this nonsense, which was merely veiled
profiteering and even bribery.
In Germany, the people, without any doubt, decide their existence.
They determine the principles of their government. In fact it has been
possible in this country to incorporate many of the broad masses into
the National Socialist party, that gigantic organization embracing
millions and having millions of officials drawn from the people
themselves. This principle is extended to the highest ranks.
For the first time in German history, we have a state which has
absolutely abolished all social prejudices in regard to political
appointments as well as in private life. I myself am the best proof of
this. Just imagine: I am not even a lawyer, and yet I am your Leader!
It is not only in ordinary life that we have succeeded in appointing
the best among the people for every position. We have
Reichsstatthalters who were formerly agricultural laborers or
locksmiths. Yes, we have even succeeded in breaking down prejudice in
a place where it was most deep-seated -in the fighting forces.
Thousands of officers are being promoted from the ranks today. We have
done away with prejudice. We have generals who were ordinary soldiers
and noncommissioned officers twenty-two and twenty-three years ago. In
this instance, too, we have overcome all social obstacles. Thus, we
are building up our life for the future.
As you know we have countless schools, national political educational
establishments, Adolf Hitler schools, and so on. To these schools we
send gifted children of the broad masses, children of working men,
farmers' sons whose parents could never have afforded a higher
education for their children. We take them in gradually. They are
educated here, sent to the Ordensburgen, to the Party, later to take
their place in the State where they will some day fill the highest
posts....
Opposed to this there stands a completely different world. In the
world the highest ideal is the struggle for wealth, for capital, for
family possessions, for personal egoism; everything else is merely a
means to such ends. Two worlds confront each other today. We know
perfectly well that if we are defeated in this war it would not only
be the end of our National Socialist work of reconstruction, but the
end of the German people as a whole. For without its powers of
coordination, the German people would starve. Today the masses
dependent on us number 120 or 130 millions, of which 85 millions alone
are our own people. We remain ever aware of this fact.
On the other hand, that other world says: 'If we lose, our world-wide
capitalistic system will collapse. For it is we who save hoarded gold.
It is lying in our cellars and will lose its value. If the idea that
work is the decisive factor spreads abroad, what will happen to us? We
shall have bought our gold in vain. Our whole claim to world dominion
can then no longer be maintained. The people will do away with their
dynasties of high finance. They will present their social claims, and
the whole world system will be overthrown.'
I can well understand that they declare: 'Let us prevent this at all
costs; it must be prevented.' They can see exactly how our nation has
been reconstructed. You see it clearly. For instance, there we see a
state ruled by a numerically small upper class. They send their sons
to their own schools, to Eton. We have Adolf Hitler schools or
national political educational establishments. On the one hand, the
sons of plutocrats, financial magnates; on the other, the children of
the people. Etonians and Harrovians exclusively in leading positions
over there; in this country, men of the people in charge of the State.
These are the two worlds. I grant that one of the two must succumb.
Yes, one or the other. But if we were to succumb, the German people
would succumb with us. If the other were to succumb, I am convinced
that the nations will become free for the first time. We are not
fighting individual Englishmen or Frenchmen. We have nothing against
them. For years I proclaimed this as the aim of my foreign policy. We
demanded nothing of them, nothing at all. When they started the war
they could not say: 'We are doing so because the Germans asked this or
that of us.' They said, on the contrary: 'We are declaring war on you
because the German system of Government does not suit us; because we
fear it might spread to our own people.' For that reason they are
carrying on this war. They wanted to blast the German nation back to
the time of Versailles, to the indescribable misery of those days. But
they have made a great mistake.
If in this war everything points to the fact that gold is fighting
against work, capitalism against peoples, and reaction against the
progress of humanity, then work, the peoples, and progress will be
victorious. Even the support of the Jewish race will not avail the
others.
I have seen all this coming for years. What did I ask of the other
world? Nothing but the right for Germans to reunite and the
restoration of all that had been taken from them - nothing which would
have meant a loss to the other nations. How often have I stretched out
my hand to them? Ever since I came into power. I had not the slightest
wish to rearm.
For what do armaments mean? They absorb so much labor. It was I who
regarded work as being of decisive importance, who wished to employ
the working capacity of Germany for other plans. I think the news is
already out that, after all, I have some fairly important plans in my
mind, vast and splendid plans for my people. It is my ambition to make
the German people rich and to make the German homeland beautiful. I
want the standard of living of the individual raised. I want us to
have the most beautiful and the finest civilization. I should like the
theater - in fact, the whole of German civilization - to benefit all
the people and not to exist only for the upper ten thousand, as is the
case in England.
The plans which we had in mind were tremendous, and I needed workers
in order to realize them. Armament only deprives me of workers. I made
proposals to limit armaments. I was ridiculed. The only answer I
received was 'No.' I proposed the limitation of certain types of
armament. That was refused. I proposed that airplanes should be
altogether eliminated from warfare. That also was refused. I suggested
that bombers should be limited. That was refused. They said: 'That is
just how we wish to force our regime upon you.' ...
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
George Dance wrote:
> I said it's a "fact of nature"
I'm a part of nature George so why cant I have facts too?
MG
George Dance
>
> I'm a part of nature George so why cant I have facts too?
Your opinions are facts, Mike. But they're *subjective facts, or (as
Ayn Rand called them) whims; so, unlike objective facts of reality like
hurricanes, they do not have to be obeyed. In fact, the best way to
deal with the whims of society (or any or its parts, like you) is to
challenge them.
Daniel T.
format or spelling issues.)
Well, it is a work of fiction. He basically won the lottery. He gave up
on his first love and went off to the quary only to be "discovered"
without any overt effort on his part.
> > >> Imagine Roark working in the quarry because nature wouldn't allow
> > >> him to build an upside down pyramid. That would be preposterous,
> > >> and yet the ebb and flow of society is a force of nature too.
> > >
> > > The fact that humans live in societies, each with norms, can be
> > > called a 'fact of nature.' But that doesn't make any particular set
> > > of norms 'natural' or 'unnatural'. Norms reduce to values and
> > > preferences, which look purely subjective.
> >
> > Agreed, but my point still stands.
>
> I already pointed out where your analogy fails. 'Facts of nature' like
> hurricanes in Florida are objective facts that a person can do nothing
> about, but has to adapt to. Social norms are not 'facts of nature'
> like that, as they can be changed. They're immune from change only to
> the degree that they're immune from challenge.
Weather is changable, the paths of rivers are changable, many "facts of
nature" change over time, so the fact that social norms change over
time doesn't invalidate the analogy. Can one person change social
norms? Maybe, but Roark doesn't make any attempt to do so. (It seems to
me, it would be against his nature, and Rand's philosophy, to try to
change social norms.)
You seem to be stressing the subjectivity of social norms as if Roark
should ignore them *because* they are subjective. However, Roark's
architetural style is itself subjective.
In the story, Roark routienly refuses to do what is best for him, and
is painted as principled because of it. As an egoist, I simply don't
agree.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
George Dance wrote:
> Your opinions are facts, Mike.
I like to believe sooo as well, thanks George.
> But they're *subjective facts,
That's an oxymoron George. Facts needs no dopey preceeding adjective.
Do you own a dictionary?
> or (as
> Ayn Rand called them) whims;
No no no George you dont know fuck all about her philosophy, do you?
The mystics god's and the silly socialist parasite's *the greater good*
are ideas based on feelings about feelings and based on any sensory
evidence, that's what Rand meant b whims George.
Whim was another word for one's subjective i.e. airyfairy imaginations,
of the mind piffle George.
> so, unlike objective facts of reality like
> hurricanes, they do not have to be obeyed.
Yeah well, you ignore or dont obey a hurricane's force and the man with
a gun making demands at your peril George.
> In fact,
What sort of fact would that be George?
> the best way to
> deal with the whims of society (or any or its parts, like you) is to
> challenge them.
Oh thats why I am here George, to challenge your dopey whims.
Michael Gordge
Daniel T.
>
> The problem with the movie may have been a Naturalist director and
> leading actor trying to film a Romantic script, that they didn't
> understand and weren't weren't all that comfortable with. (Witness the
> climactic courtroom scene, where Gary Cooper clearly has no idea how to
> deliver his lines.) Vidor did his best - lots of effective use of
> shadows, et al - but the result tended toward melodrama.
Yes, well one has to keep in mind that moving making is a highly
collabrative effort. From what I see in Rand's writings, she was never
a big fan of people collaborating. I'm sure she found Hollywood quite
irritating.
George Dance
Oh, come on; he was 'discovered' because of the (admittedly few)
existing buildings that he had already designed. Neither Roark's dark
nights in the quarry, or his ultimate triumph at the end of the book,
are particular realistic, nor were they meant to be: Rand was
following the conventions of Romantic fiction.
> > > >> Imagine Roark working in the quarry because nature wouldn't allow
> > > >> him to build an upside down pyramid. That would be preposterous,
> > > >> and yet the ebb and flow of society is a force of nature too.
> > > >
> > > > The fact that humans live in societies, each with norms, can be
> > > > called a 'fact of nature.' But that doesn't make any particular set
> > > > of norms 'natural' or 'unnatural'. Norms reduce to values and
> > > > preferences, which look purely subjective.
> > >
> > > Agreed, but my point still stands.
> >
> > I already pointed out where your analogy fails. 'Facts of nature' like
> > hurricanes in Florida are objective facts that a person can do nothing
> > about, but has to adapt to. Social norms are not 'facts of nature'
> > like that, as they can be changed. They're immune from change only to
> > the degree that they're immune from challenge.
>
> Weather is changable, the paths of rivers are changable, many "facts of
> nature" change over time, so the fact that social norms change over
> time doesn't invalidate the analogy.
When you look at the two different types of 'change', you'll see that
there are important differences. WRT changing the river, for example,
the objective facts that explain its course - such as, that water has
gravity and therefore flows down - cannot be changed. It's not by
changing such facts that one changes the river's course, but by
accepting them as givens, and changing the heights of some land
accordingly. As the cliche goes: "Nature, to be commanded, must be
obeyed."
Not only are social norms not facts of that kind - facts of objective,
or mind-independent reality - but they don't rest on any evident facts
of that kind. Rather, social norms look fully reducible to subjective
facts - facts about what people believe.
> Can one person change social
> norms? Maybe, but Roark doesn't make any attempt to do so. (It seems to
> me, it would be against his nature, and Rand's philosophy, to try to
> change social norms.)
All that's necessary to change a social norm is to act on one's own
norms - if you can do so successfully, the social norm (which includes
your norms) is different. It's true that neither Roark nor Rand would
be motivated by the purpose of challenging and changing social norms
(though some of Fountainhead's characters, like the author of
"Toothbrush in the Jaw," were given that motive), any more than they'd
have the motivated by the purpose of doing good to others - yet, by
their actions, others were benefitted and social norms were changed.
> You seem to be stressing the subjectivity of social norms as if Roark
> should ignore them *because* they are subjective. However, Roark's
> architetural style is itself subjective.
Sure; his style preferences were no more or less subjective
'society's'. And no more or less a 'natural obstacle' to 'society'
than 'society's' were to him.
> In the story, Roark routienly refuses to do what is best for him, and
> is painted as principled because of it.
Roark simply had a different view of what is 'best for him' than you.
There was another architect in the book, though - Peter Keating - who
shared your normative view of what was 'best for him' - do whatever the
customer wants; do anything to get the sale. Rand used Keating's
character to discuss the consequences of holding that view.
> As an egoist, I simply don't agree.
Well, Rand does include a scenario which outlines the consequences of
the Keating-norm in rather dramatic fashion:
At one point, Keating is offered all the future architectural business
of a very rich client. However, the client tells him, in effect: "I
don't care about your work or your talent, or even whether you have
any. All I want is for you to divorce your wife, because I want her
for a trophy wife." Keating is passionately in love with his wife -
she's the one thing in life that he really values; but he also lives by
the above norm; he asks his wife to refuse for him, but when she won't
do that for him, he agrees to the divorce.
As an egoist, would you say that Keating took the action that was 'best
for him'?
George Dance
Daniel T. wrote:
> (I'm on a short vacation and am posting via Google. Excuse any odd
> format or spelling issues.)
> George Dance wrote:
> > Daniel T. wrote:
Oh, come on; he was 'discovered' because of the (admittedly few)
existing buildings that he had already designed. Neither Roark's dark
nights in the quarry, or his ultimate triumph at the end of the book,
are particular realistic, nor were they meant to be: Rand was
following the conventions of Romantic fiction.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> > > >> Imagine Roark working in the quarry because nature wouldn't allow
> > > >> him to build an upside down pyramid. That would be preposterous,
> > > >> and yet the ebb and flow of society is a force of nature too.
> > > > The fact that humans live in societies, each with norms, can be
> > > > called a 'fact of nature.' But that doesn't make any particular set
> > > > of norms 'natural' or 'unnatural'. Norms reduce to values and
> > > > preferences, which look purely subjective.
> > > Agreed, but my point still stands.
> > I already pointed out where your analogy fails. 'Facts of nature' like
> > hurricanes in Florida are objective facts that a person can do nothing
> > about, but has to adapt to. Social norms are not 'facts of nature'
> > like that, as they can be changed. They're immune from change only to
> > the degree that they're immune from challenge.
> Weather is changable, the paths of rivers are changable, many "facts of
> nature" change over time, so the fact that social norms change over
> time doesn't invalidate the analogy.
When you look at the two different types of 'change', you'll see that
there are important differences. WRT changing the river, for example,
the objective facts that explain its course - such as, that water has
gravity and therefore flows down - cannot be changed. It's not by
changing such facts that one changes the river's course, but by
accepting them as givens, and changing the heights of some land
accordingly. As the cliche goes: "Nature, to be commanded, must be
obeyed."
Not only are social norms not facts of that kind - facts of objective,
or mind-independent reality - but they don't rest on any evident facts
of that kind. Rather, social norms look fully reducible to subjective
facts - facts about what people believe.
> Can one person change social
> norms? Maybe, but Roark doesn't make any attempt to do so. (It seems to
> me, it would be against his nature, and Rand's philosophy, to try to
> change social norms.)
All that's necessary to change a social norm is to act on one's own
norms - if you can do so successfully, the social norm (which includes
your norms) is different. It's true that neither Roark nor Rand would
be motivated by the purpose of challenging and changing social norms
(though some of Fountainhead's characters, like the author of
"Toothbrush in the Jaw," were given that motive), any more than they'd
have the motivated by the purpose of doing good to others - yet, by
their actions, others were benefitted and social norms were changed.
> You seem to be stressing the subjectivity of social norms as if Roark
> should ignore them *because* they are subjective. However, Roark's
> architetural style is itself subjective.
Sure; his style preferences were no more or less subjective
'society's'. And no more or less a 'natural obstacle' to 'society'
than 'society's' were to him.
> In the story, Roark routienly refuses to do what is best for him, and
> is painted as principled because of it.
Roark simply had a different view of what is 'best for him' than you.
There was another architect in the book, though - Peter Keating - who
shared your normative view of what was 'best for him' - do whatever the
customer wants; do anything to get the sale. Rand used Keating's
character to discuss the consequences of holding that view.
> As an egoist, I simply don't agree.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
George Dance wrote:
> of that kind. Rather, social norms look fully reducible to subjective
> facts
That's an oxymoron George.
A fact is a fact a fact is not imagined which means there cant be
anything subjective about a fact. Facts can only be discovered and
identifiied by man through the process or faculty of reason, reason
defined as *a faculty of man of non-contradictroy identification and
integration of the matter / material / information as provided by the
perceptions of man's sesnes eyes ears nose feel touch*
> - facts about what people believe.
Believing doesn't make anything a fact.
What you believe doesn't change what is.
You believe in the presense of existing facts and not in the hope of.
Michael Gordge
George Dance
> George Dance wrote:
>
> > of that kind. Rather, social norms look fully reducible to subjective
> > facts
>
> That's an oxymoron George.
>
A fact F is subjective, iff F is a fact iff it is believed that F is a
fact.
> A fact is a fact a fact is not imagined which means there cant be
> anything subjective about a fact.
If you imagine an elephant, then it's a *fact that you are imagining an
elephant - that fact, though, is purely subjective; you're imagining an
elephant if, and only if, you think you are.
> Facts can only be discovered and
> identifiied by man through the process or faculty of reason, reason
> defined as *a faculty of man of non-contradictroy identification and
> integration of the matter / material / information as provided by the
> perceptions of man's sesnes eyes ears nose feel touch*
That's as true for subjective facts - for instance, facts about what a
person values - as it is for objective facts - facts about
mind-independent reality.
> > - facts about what people believe.
>
> Believing doesn't make anything a fact.
>
Wrong. If you believe in fairies, that makes it a fact that you
believe in fairies. If you didn't believe in fairies, it would not be
a fact that you believe in fairies. Understand?
> What you believe doesn't change what is.
What you believe about your beliefs changes your beliefs; what you
believe about your memories changes your memories; what you believe
about your values changes your values; etc. Those are all subjective
facts, and you know them all with 100% absolute certainty - because
they all depend solely on what you believe about them.
Which is where epistemic subjectivists like you, who do not understand
the difference between objective and subjective reality, go astray.
Because you know certain subjective facts with 100% absolute certainty
- for instance, that you remember having a bowel movement earlier in
the day - you leap to the conclusion that you know some objective facts
with 100% absolute certainty: for instance, that you did have a bowel
movement earlier in the day.
Daniel T.
> [reposted to include alt,hilosophy.objectivism]
OOOH, bringing in the big guns. I better watch myself now. :-)
To recap what I have said so far:
Rand's protagonists tend to refuse to accept that they are part of, and
dependent on, a larger organism (the society in which they live.) For an
architect to succeed, he must have both "genius" and an understanding of
his client's desires.
In a partnership there is compromise; neither party can have exactly
what he wants. Rand seemed to think that if one just did what he wants
to do, he will succeed. No compromises and damn everyone else's views.
That works maybe for alligators because they have no social structure,
no concept of community. It doesn't work for humans because we need
each-other to survive.
The one thing that Howard Roark doesn't want to do is "deal" with
anybody. I think it fair to say that in the book, Roark wants to succeed
without having to make any deals at all, never agreeing to do what
someone else wants.
>>>> [Society was] an obstacle because they prevented Roark from doing
>>>> what he loved.
>>>
>>> Only temporarily. (That was one of the conflicts in the story, of
>>> course.) In the end, he had a rich client, a bunch of smaller
>>> ones, and a word-of-muth reputation.
>>
>> Well, it is a work of fiction. He basically won the lottery. He
>> gave up on his first love and went off to the quary only to be
>> "discovered" without any overt effort on his part.
>
> Oh, come on; he was 'discovered' because of the (admittedly few)
> existing buildings that he had already designed. Neither Roark's
> dark nights in the quarry, or his ultimate triumph at the end of the
> book, are particular realistic, nor were they meant to be: Rand was
> following the conventions of Romantic fiction.
And a lottery winner wins because of the (admittedly few) tickets he
buys. Don't even try to pretend that Roark is activly seeking success.
The last thing he would ever do is look for validation from the masses.
Rand even showed in the book that such success wasn't inevetable if one
just "stuck to his guns", note what happened to Henry Cameron.
>>>>>> Imagine Roark working in the quarry because nature wouldn't
>>>>>> allow him to build an upside down pyramid. That would be
>>>>>> preposterous, and yet the ebb and flow of society is a force of
>>>>>> nature too.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that humans live in societies, each with norms, can be
>>>>> called a 'fact of nature.' But that doesn't make any particular
>>>>> set of norms 'natural' or 'unnatural'. Norms reduce to values
>>>>> and preferences, which look purely subjective.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed, but my point still stands.
>>>
>>> I already pointed out where your analogy fails. 'Facts of nature'
>>> like hurricanes in Florida are objective facts that a person can
>>> do nothing about, but has to adapt to. Social norms are not
>>> 'facts of nature' like that, as they can be changed. They're
>>> immune from change only to the degree that they're immune from
>>> challenge.
>>
>> Weather is changable, the paths of rivers are changable, many
>> "facts of nature" change over time, so the fact that social norms
>> change over time doesn't invalidate the analogy.
>
> When you look at the two different types of 'change', you'll see
> that there are important differences.
Fine, I will happily drop the adjitive.
>> Can one person change social norms? Maybe, but Roark doesn't make
>> any attempt to do so. (It seems to me, it would be against his
>> nature, and Rand's philosophy, to try to change social norms.)
>
> All that's necessary to change a social norm is to act on one's own
> norms - if you can do so successfully, the social norm (which
> includes your norms) is different.
If you can act on your own norm successfully, then the social norm is
already changing, and you are not *causing* it to change.
> It's true that neither Roark nor
> Rand would be motivated by the purpose of challenging and changing
> social norms (though some of Fountainhead's characters, like the
> author of "Toothbrush in the Jaw," were given that motive), any
> more than they'd have the motivated by the purpose of doing good to
> others - yet, by their actions, others were benefitted and social
> norms were changed.
>
>> You seem to be stressing the subjectivity of social norms as if
>> Roark should ignore them *because* they are subjective. However,
>> Roark's architetural style is itself subjective.
>
> Sure; his style preferences were no more or less subjective
> 'society's'. And no more or less a 'natural obstacle' to 'society'
> than 'society's' were to him.
I'm reading the two passages you wrote above. In the first you say that
"others were benefitted" in the latter you agree that what is at stake
(for both society and Roark) is purely subjective.
>> In the story, Roark routienly refuses to do what is best for him,
>> and is painted as principled because of it.
>
> Roark simply had a different view of what is 'best for him' than
> you.
Well, that is a bit hard to guage and you may be right. Roark seems
conflicted to me. His principles are getting in the way of what he
really wants to do. I'm willing to give up on that though, maybe he
really wanted to work in the quarry.
> There was another architect in the book, though - Peter Keating
> - who shared your normative view of what was 'best for him' - do
> whatever the
>
> customer wants; do anything to get the sale. Rand used Keating's
> character to discuss the consequences of holding that view.
>
>> As an egoist, I simply don't agree.
>
> Well, Rand does include a scenario which outlines the consequences
> of the Keating-norm in rather dramatic fashion:
>
> At one point, Keating is offered all the future architectural
> business of a very rich client. However, the client tells him, in
> effect: "I don't care about your work or your talent, or even
> whether you have any. All I want is for you to divorce your wife,
> because I want her for a trophy wife." Keating is passionately in
> love with his wife - she's the one thing in life that he really
> values; but he also lives by
>
> the above norm; he asks his wife to refuse for him, but when she
> won't do that for him, he agrees to the divorce.
>
> As an egoist, would you say that Keating took the action that was
> 'best for him'?
Keating is far from an egoist, he spends his life forever seeking the
approval of others.
As I said before:
The other characters in the story either embraced societal norms or
detested them. To Roark's credit, he did neither. However, would he have
fought so hard against any other sort of obstacle?
Roark refused to even consider societal norms and because of that, he
couldn't practice his first choice of profession.
--
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
George Dance wrote:
> No, it isn't. Here's the definition:
Yes it is and you're making your definitions up to suit your silly
Kantian nonsense.
subjective = based on opinion not evidence, imagined, whimsical,
nonsense, unreal
fact = something that can be shown to be true, exists, real, not
imagined.
> > A fact is a fact a fact is not imagined which means there cant be
> > anything subjective about a fact.
>
> If you imagine an elephant, then it's a *fact that you are imagining an
> elephant - that fact, though, is purely subjective; you're imagining an
> elephant if, and only if, you think you are.
Rubbish, you dont have to imagine an elephant for it to exist,
elephants are real and exist regardless of the state of mind. However
you HAVE to imagine unicorns and god and the leftists greater good
crap, because none of those stupid nonsenes exist anywhere outside of
the mind, they DONT exist in any form of sensory matter.
ANY and ALL claims of man's knowledge, which can NOT be reduced right
back down to an irreducable and sensory level of perception, are
imagined of the mind fucking nonsenses, man gives ANY creedence to such
nonsenses at his peril.
> That's as true for subjective facts - for instance, facts about what a
> person values -
Rubbish, values based on whim, imagined, unreal non-existent nonsenses,
of the mind piffle, leads man to nonsenses such as gods, slamming jets
into sky-scrapers, strapping bombs to themselves, the leftist's greater
good scam, etc etc.
Values based on sensory matter, evidence which exists in reality, i.e.
matter which exists external and regardless of man's state of
consciousness, gives man the objective standards to judge ideas actions
and events against.
In reality
Man's values can ONLY be based on objective sensory evidence.
OR
Subjective imagined fucking nonsenes.
> > Believing doesn't make anything a fact.
> >
> Wrong. If you believe in fairies, that makes it a fact that you
> believe in fairies.
Crap, facts correspond to reality and reality is not imagined.
> > What you believe doesn't change what is.
>
> What you believe about your beliefs changes your beliefs;
What the fuck? What circular fucking idiotic nonsense.
MG
George Dance
> George Dance wrote:
>
> > No, it isn't. Here's the definition:
>
> Yes it is and you're making your definitions up to
and you snipped it, which means of course that I'll snip yours in turn:
> > > A fact is a fact a fact is not imagined which means there cant be
> > > anything subjective about a fact.
> >
> > If you imagine an elephant, then it's a *fact that you are imagining an
> > elephant - that fact, though, is purely subjective; you're imagining an
> > elephant if, and only if, you think you are.
>
> Rubbish, you dont have to imagine an elephant for it to exist,
> elephants are real and exist regardless of the state of mind.
So you claim that there are no facts about what people think or
imagine; that no one really imagines or thinks anything. (That's what
it means for there to be no facts about what they imagine or think.)
> However
> you HAVE to imagine unicorns and god and the leftists greater good
> crap, because none of those stupid nonsenes exist anywhere outside of
> the mind, they DONT exist in any form of sensory matter.
If there are no facts that people imagine 'unicorns and god,' then no
one actually does imagine 'unicorns and god.'
> ANY and ALL claims of man's knowledge, which can NOT be reduced right
> back down to an irreducable and sensory level of perception, are
> imagined of the mind fucking nonsenses, man gives ANY creedence to such
> nonsenses at his peril.
Or as Floyd Ferris put it in his "Why Do you think you think?"
According to him and you, it is not a fact that anyone thinks, of
anything.
> > That's as true for subjective facts - for instance, facts about what a
> > person values -
>
> Rubbish, values based on whim, imagined, unreal non-existent nonsenses,
> of the mind piffle, leads man to nonsenses such as gods, slamming jets
> into sky-scrapers, strapping bombs to themselves, the leftist's greater
> good scam, etc etc.
If (as you claim) there are no facts about what anyone values, then no
one really values anything; in which case, their values cannot 'lead'
them to do anything (as a non-existent cannot cause anything.)
> Values based on sensory matter, evidence which exists in reality, i.e.
> matter which exists external and regardless of man's state of
> consciousness, gives man the objective standards to judge ideas actions
> and events against.
If (as you claim) there are no facts about what anyone values, then no
one's values can 'give' them any standard to judge anything. (Least of
all ideas, as you claim that ideas are as non-existent as values).
> In reality
>
> Man's values can ONLY be based on objective sensory evidence.
In reality, according to you, no one has any values; in which case they
cannot be based on anything.
> OR
>
> Subjective imagined fucking nonsenes.
>
> > > Believing doesn't make anything a fact.
> > >
> > Wrong. If you believe in fairies, that makes it a fact that you
> > believe in fairies.
>
> Crap, facts correspond to reality and reality is not imagined.
So it's not a fact that anyone believes in fairies? They just imagine
that they do? (Woops, they can't do that either, as their are no facts
about what anyone imagines, either.)
> > > What you believe doesn't change what is.
> >
> > What you believe about your beliefs changes your beliefs; <unsnip> what you believe about your memories changes your memories; what you believe about your values changes your values; etc. </us>
George Dance
>
> OOOH, bringing in the big guns. I better watch myself now. :-)
>
> To recap what I have said so far:
>
> Rand's protagonists tend to refuse to accept that they are part of, and
> dependent on, a larger organism (the society in which they live.) For an
> architect to succeed, he must have both "genius" and an understanding of
> his client's desires.
Not at all. Three of the four main characters in /The Fountainhead
accept that view, and take different approaches:
1) Keating accepts 'society's values', and so gives the client whatever
he wants.
2) Wynand disagrees with 'society's values,' but gives his clients what
they want anyway because he wants to 'succeed'.
3) Dominique Francon disagrees with 'society's values', and spends her
time rebelling against them, rejecting the idea of success along with
them.
> In a partnership there is compromise; neither party can have exactly
> what he wants. Rand seemed to think that if one just did what he wants
> to do, he will succeed. No compromises and damn everyone else's views.
We can call that th fourth option:
(4) Roark doesn't worry about 'society's values,' but pursues his own
instead.
Those exhaust the possibilities; any other option is reducible to a mix
of the above 4.
> That works maybe for alligators because they have no social structure,
> no concept of community. It doesn't work for humans because we need
> each-other to survive.
>
> The one thing that Howard Roark doesn't want to do is "deal" with
> anybody. I think it fair to say that in the book, Roark wants to succeed
> without having to make any deals at all, never agreeing to do what
> someone else wants.
Sure he does. When a client wants a skyscraper, Roark doesn't design a
motel instead; when a client wants a motel, Roark doesn't design him a
skyscraper instead. (If he were completely unconcerned with making
deals with clients, why would he do that?)
> >>>> [Society was] an obstacle because they prevented Roark from doing
> >>>> what he loved.
> >>>
> >>> Only temporarily. (That was one of the conflicts in the story, of
> >>> course.) In the end, he had a rich client, a bunch of smaller
> >>> ones, and a word-of-muth reputation.
> >>
> >> Well, it is a work of fiction. He basically won the lottery. He
> >> gave up on his first love and went off to the quary only to be
> >> "discovered" without any overt effort on his part.
> >
> > Oh, come on; he was 'discovered' because of the (admittedly few)
> > existing buildings that he had already designed. Neither Roark's
> > dark nights in the quarry, or his ultimate triumph at the end of the
> > book, are particular realistic, nor were they meant to be: Rand was
> > following the conventions of Romantic fiction.
>
> And a lottery winner wins because of the (admittedly few) tickets he
> buys. Don't even try to pretend that Roark is activly seeking success.
> The last thing he would ever do is look for validation from the masses.
Yet he takes on clients, and designs buildings to fit their needs. His
motives are incomprehensible, if one assumes that he's not loking for
success.
> Rand even showed in the book that such success wasn't inevetable if one
> just "stuck to his guns", note what happened to Henry Cameron.
True; if sticking to one's guns guaranteed success, there'd be no
conflict (and no point in reading the book).
> >>>>>> Imagine Roark working in the quarry because nature wouldn't
> >>>>>> allow him to build an upside down pyramid. That would be
> >>>>>> preposterous, and yet the ebb and flow of society is a force of
> >>>>>> nature too.
> >>>>>
> >>> I already pointed out where your analogy fails. 'Facts of nature'
> >>> like hurricanes in Florida are objective facts that a person can
> >>> do nothing about, but has to adapt to. Social norms are not
> >>> 'facts of nature' like that, as they can be changed. They're
> >>> immune from change only to the degree that they're immune from
> >>> challenge.
> >>
> >> Weather is changable, the paths of rivers are changable, many
> >> "facts of nature" change over time, so the fact that social norms
> >> change over time doesn't invalidate the analogy.
> >
> > When you look at the two different types of 'change', you'll see
> > that there are important differences.
[all of which you snipped]
>
> Fine, I will happily drop the adjitive.
>
Great, as long as you undrstand the difference between objective facts
(facts of reality, like physical facts) and subjective facts (like
people's design preferences).
> >> Can one person change social norms? Maybe, but Roark doesn't make
> >> any attempt to do so. (It seems to me, it would be against his
> >> nature, and Rand's philosophy, to try to change social norms.)
> >
> > All that's necessary to change a social norm is to act on one's own
> > norms - if you can do so successfully, the social norm (which
> > includes your norms) is different.
>
> If you can act on your own norm successfully, then the social norm is
> already changing, and you are not *causing* it to change.
>
> > It's true that neither Roark nor
> > Rand would be motivated by the purpose of challenging and changing
> > social norms (though some of Fountainhead's characters, like the
> > author of "Toothbrush in the Jaw," were given that motive), any
> > more than they'd have the motivated by the purpose of doing good to
> > others - yet, by their actions, others were benefitted and social
> > norms were changed.
> >
> >> You seem to be stressing the subjectivity of social norms as if
> >> Roark should ignore them *because* they are subjective. However,
> >> Roark's architetural style is itself subjective.
> >
> > Sure; his style preferences were no more or less subjective
> > 'society's'. And no more or less a 'natural obstacle' to 'society'
> > than 'society's' were to him.
>
> I'm reading the two passages you wrote above. In the first you say that
> "others were benefitted" in the latter you agree that what is at stake
> (for both society and Roark) is purely subjective.
Of course others were benefitted; Roark's clients got buildings they
wanted, at a price they were willing to pay. The point of
disagreement, though - whether a skyscraper should have Greek porticoes
or not - does look purely subjective.
> >> In the story, Roark routienly refuses to do what is best for him,
> >> and is painted as principled because of it.
> >
> > Roark simply had a different view of what is 'best for him' than
> > you.
>
> Well, that is a bit hard to guage and you may be right. Roark seems
> conflicted to me. His principles are getting in the way of what he
> really wants to do. I'm willing to give up on that though, maybe he
> really wanted to work in the quarry.
He preferred working in the quarry to designing skyscrapers with Greek
porticoes. He got out of the quarry fast enough when there was a third
option.
> > There was another architect in the book, though - Peter Keating
> > - who shared your normative view of what was 'best for him' - do
> > whatever the customer wants; do anything to get the sale. Rand used Keating's
> > character to discuss the consequences of holding that view.
> >
> >> As an egoist, I simply don't agree.
> >
> > Well, Rand does include a scenario which outlines the consequences
> > of the Keating-norm in rather dramatic fashion:
> >
> > At one point, Keating is offered all the future architectural
> > business of a very rich client. However, the client tells him, in
> > effect: "I don't care about your work or your talent, or even
> > whether you have any. All I want is for you to divorce your wife,
> > because I want her for a trophy wife." Keating is passionately in
> > love with his wife - she's the one thing in life that he really
> > values; but he also lives by the above norm; he asks his wife to refuse for him, but when she
> > won't do that for him, he agrees to the divorce.
> >
> > As an egoist, would you say that Keating took the action that was
> > 'best for him'?
>
> Keating is far from an egoist, he spends his life forever seeking the
> approval of others.
But he did exactly what you'd advise an egoist to do: he sold out one
of his values to get the commission.
> As I said before:
>
> The other characters in the story either embraced societal norms or
> detested them. To Roark's credit, he did neither. However, would he have
> fought so hard against any other sort of obstacle?
>
> Roark refused to even consider societal norms and because of that, he
> couldn't practice his first choice of profession.
For a couple of months. Whereas Keating put the other person's norms
first, and got enough business out of it to spend the rest of his life
in his chosen profession.
George Dance
"One Rand biographer describes the 1947 filming of /The Fountainhead/
as 'a constant war to protect her work, a war from which she would
emerge battered, bleeding, and without illusions.' At one point she
even copied her book's hero, Howard Roark, by threatening to blow up
the Warner studio if certain changes were made. In the end, her victory
was incomplete: key lines like the one from Roark's climactic
courtroom speech - 'I am a man who does not exist for others' -
ended up on the cutting room floor."
http://www.libertarian.on.ca/bulletin/V25_N3%20Spring%202005.htm#_Toc99544647
Daniel T.
There you go. She had a choice, either allow other people's input in the
making of the movie, or not make the movie. Unlike her character, she
chose to compromise.
Daniel T.
> Daniel T. wrote:
>> "George Dance" <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>> Rand's protagonists tend to refuse to accept that they are part of,
>> and dependent on, a larger organism (the society in which they
>> live.) For an architect to succeed, he must have both "genius" and
>> an understanding of his client's desires.
>
> Not at all. Three of the four main characters in /The Fountainhead
> accept that view, and take different approaches:
> 1) Keating accepts 'society's values', and so gives the client
> whatever he wants.
Keeting doesn't simply accept society's values, he places those values
above his own. That is his failure.
> 2) Wynand disagrees with 'society's values,' but gives his clients
> what they want anyway because he wants to 'succeed'.
Wynard is much closer to the ideal man IMHO. To my mind the ideal man
(a) shapes his wants based on the environment in which he lives and (b)
uses all the elements the environment provides to fulfill those wants.
Wynard's fatal flaw is that he begins to think he has more control over
his environment than he really does. He gets too full of himself.
> 3) Dominique Francon disagrees with 'society's values', and spends
> her time rebelling against them, rejecting the idea of success along
> with them.
Dominique is a rebel without a cause, she spends all of her time
fighting against something rather than fighting for something. That is
her flaw.
>> In a partnership there is compromise; neither party can have
>> exactly what he wants. Rand seemed to think that if one just did
>> what he wants to do, he will succeed. No compromises and damn
>> everyone else's views.
>
> We can call that the fourth option:
> (4) Roark doesn't worry about 'society's values,' but pursues his
> own instead.
Roark doesn't fit in with my comment above. Roark refuses to compromise.
The one thing he *never* does is design a building with an eye toward
encoring a particular person or group to buy it. Their whims are
irrelevant to him, he never uses them to his own advantage, he ignores
them at his own peril. If he was willing to compromise, he would have
gotten the Manhattan Bank Building project.
>> That works maybe for alligators because they have no social
>> structure, no concept of community. It doesn't work for humans
>> because we need each-other to survive.
>>
>> The one thing that Howard Roark doesn't want to do is "deal" with
>> anybody. I think it fair to say that in the book, Roark wants to
>> succeed without having to make any deals at all, never agreeing to
>> do what someone else wants.
>
> Sure he does. When a client wants a skyscraper, Roark doesn't design
> a motel instead; when a client wants a motel, Roark doesn't design
> him a skyscraper instead. (If he were completely unconcerned with
> making deals with clients, why would he do that?)
Making a choice between doing something you love and doing something
else that you love isn't a compromise. He never seeks clients, he waits
until they come to him, that is not the attitude of someone who wishes
to succeed. He never does anything with an eye toward making himself
more acceptable to someone else.
>>>>>> [Society was] an obstacle because they prevented Roark from
>>>>>> doing what he loved.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only temporarily. (That was one of the conflicts in the story,
>>>>> of course.) In the end, he had a rich client, a bunch of smaller
>>>>> ones, and a word-of-muth reputation.
>>>>
>>>> Well, it is a work of fiction. He basically won the lottery. He
>>>> gave up on his first love and went off to the quarry only to be
>>>> "discovered" without any overt effort on his part.
>>>
>>> Oh, come on; he was 'discovered' because of the (admittedly few)
>>> existing buildings that he had already designed. Neither Roark's
>>> dark nights in the quarry, or his ultimate triumph at the end of
>>> the book, are particular realistic, nor were they meant to be:
>>> Rand was following the conventions of Romantic fiction.
>>
>> And a lottery winner wins because of the (admittedly few) tickets
>> he buys. Don't even try to pretend that Roark is actively seeking
>> success. The last thing he would ever do is look for validation
>> from the masses.
>
> Yet he takes on clients, and designs buildings to fit their needs.
> His motives are incomprehensible, if one assumes that he's not
> loking for success.
A man looking for success doesn't wait for success to come get him.
Roark doesn't solicit clients, he waits to be asked.
>> I'm reading the two passages you wrote above. In the first you say
>> that "others were benefitted" in the latter you agree that what is
>> at stake (for both society and Roark) is purely subjective.
>
> Of course others were benefitted; Roark's clients got buildings they
> wanted, at a price they were willing to pay. The point of
> disagreement, though - whether a skyscraper should have Greek
> porticoes or not - does look purely subjective.
And yet, he was willing to give up on designing buildings (his one true
love) because of a personal whim.
>>>> In the story, Roark routinely refuses to do what is best for him,
>>>> and is painted as principled because of it.
>>>
>>> Roark simply had a different view of what is 'best for him' than
>>> you.
>>
>> Well, that is a bit hard to gauge and you may be right. Roark seems
>> conflicted to me. His principles are getting in the way of what he
>> really wants to do. I'm willing to give up on that though, maybe he
>> really wanted to work in the quarry.
>
> He preferred working in the quarry to designing skyscrapers with
> Greek porticoes. He got out of the quarry fast enough when there was
> a third option.
But he never looks for that third option, it's dropped in his lap by the
author. I do not think the ideal man should wait for the "author" to
hand him acceptable choices.
>>> There was another architect in the book, though - Peter Keating -
>>> who shared your normative view of what was 'best for him' - do
>>> whatever the customer wants; do anything to get the sale. Rand
>>> used Keating's character to discuss the consequences of holding
>>> that view.
>>>
>>>> As an egoist, I simply don't agree.
>>>
>>> Well, Rand does include a scenario which outlines the consequences
>>> of the Keating-norm in rather dramatic fashion:
>>>
>>> At one point, Keating is offered all the future architectural
>>> business of a very rich client. However, the client tells him, in
>>> effect: "I don't care about your work or your talent, or even
>>> whether you have any. All I want is for you to divorce your wife,
>>> because I want her for a trophy wife." Keating is passionately in
>>> love with his wife - she's the one thing in life that he really
>>> values; but he also lives by the above norm; he asks his wife to
>>> refuse for him, but when she won't do that for him, he agrees to
>>> the divorce.
>>>
>>> As an egoist, would you say that Keating took the action that was
>>> 'best for him'?
>>
>> Keating is far from an egoist, he spends his life forever seeking
>> the approval of others.
>
> But he did exactly what you'd advise an egoist to do: he sold out
> one of his values to get the commission.
Keating never did what I'd advise an egoist to do, he always put others'
opinions above his own.
I find the spin on your words interesting. Keating is married to a woman
he doesn't even love because society said he should marry her, and then
he gives her up because a man offers him something else that society
values. Yet you say Keating is somehow selling out "one of his values".
>> As I said before:
>>
>> The other characters in the story either embraced societal norms or
>> detested them. To Roark's credit, he did neither. However, would he
>> have fought so hard against any other sort of obstacle?
>>
>> Roark refused to even consider societal norms and because of that,
>> he couldn't practice his first choice of profession.
>
> For a couple of months. Whereas Keating put the other person's norms
> first, and got enough business out of it to spend the rest of his
> life in his chosen profession.
Architecture is not Keating's profession of choice. At first, he wants
to be an artist. Does Keating ever do what he wants to do? That's hard
to tell because he never expresses his opinion, he leaves that to others.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
George Dance wrote:
>
> So you claim that there are no facts about what people think or
> imagine; that no one really imagines or thinks anything.
Stop being dishonest by trying to drop context, the context of what I
said is VERY CLEAR, Camels and horses do not exist as entities which
the mind HAS to imagine, unicorns and gods do.
Unicorns and gods can NOT exist WITHOUT imagination, camels and horses
do and can.
> (That's what
> it means for there to be no facts about what they imagine or think.)
You clearly imply that all facts HAVE to be imagined, I am saying that
facts exist without imagination, and the context changes totally when a
mental picture of a fact of reality is formed in the mind.
>
> If there are no facts that people imagine 'unicorns and god,' then no
> one actually does imagine 'unicorns and god.'
You are deliberately and or ignorantly, I suspect both, equating and
confusing metaphysics with epistemology.
> Or as Floyd Ferris put it in his "Why Do you think you think?"
> According to him and you, it is not a fact that anyone thinks, of
> anything.
Nope, you cant think about nothing, and when your ideas, or when your
mental process inside your head is NOT linked to ANY sensory existing
evidence / matterial, then that mental process is called imagining, of
the mind nonsensical trash, unreal non-existing, piffle, crap, BS,
whimsical, subjective crap, godh, *god* and the leftist mystic's *the
greater good* spring to mind as two such piffleonian of the mind
invented fucking nonsenses invented inside sick irrational dopey minds.
> If (as you claim) there are no facts about what anyone values,
On the contrary George, it is ME who says, values which are not linked
directly to facts of sensory data, are imagined invented of the mind
fucking piffle nonsenses, which man trusts at his peril, gosh George,
here we go again, E.G. valuing *god* and valuing the retarded leftist
mystic's *the Greater Good* are two such idiotic values which have
resulted in countless deaths and human misery for thousands of years.
> In reality, according to you, no one has any values; in which case they
> cannot be based on anything.
Values require standards George, and the more real e.g. sensory
reality, those standards are George, then the more real those standards
are. e.g. Human Life (your life) as the standard of ALL moral values,
is, a pretty good standard to use because it is easy to identify and of
course George its REAL, it can be poked with a stick.
Wanna try and poke me with a stick, to see how impractical, therefore
irratoinal, therefore immoral your action is? Go on try it George.
Michael Gordge
George Dance
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> George Dance wrote:
> >
> > So you claim that there are no facts about what people think or
> > imagine; that no one really imagines or thinks anything.
>
> Stop being dishonest by trying to drop context
Says the dishonest little prick who snipped all the context out of the
thread once again.
Well, here is the context; I mentioned and defined 'subjective facts'
as follows:
<quote>
George Dance wrote:
> Rather, social norms look fully reducible to subjective
> facts - facts about what people believe.
And you immediately started claiming there were any such things:
<quote>
That's an oxymoron George.
A fact is a fact a fact is not imagined which means there cant be
anything subjective about a fact.
</q>
> the context of what I
> said is VERY CLEAR, Camels and horses do not exist as entities which
> the mind HAS to imagine, unicorns and gods do.
If you're pretending that has anything to with what I have said, you're
engaged in deliberate misrepresentation.
> Unicorns and gods can NOT exist WITHOUT imagination, camels and horses
> do and can.
>
> > (That's what
> > it means for there to be no facts about what they imagine or think.)
>
> You clearly imply that all facts HAVE to be imagined
As I said, you are choosing to engage in deliberate misrepresentation
(what's called 'attacking a strawman'). What I claimed, and you've
been denying, was that there are *any subjective facts - facts about
subjective thoughts, imaginations, beliefs, memories, values, etc.
> , I am saying that
> facts exist without imagination
Objective facts are mind-ndependent; they exist just fine whether
they're imagined or not. OTOH, subjective facts do not; they exist iff
someone thinks that they do.
> , and the context changes totally when a
> mental picture of a fact of reality is formed in the mind.
If I imagine or think that a 'mental picture of a fact of reality' has
been formed in my mind, then it's a fact that a mental picture of
reality is formed in my mind. If I don't think it's a fact, then it's
not a fact. Understand that, and you'll understand what a subjective
fact is, and why I can judge you to be engaging in deliberate
misrepresenting the concept.
> > If there are no facts that people imagine 'unicorns and god,' then no
> > one actually does imagine 'unicorns and god.'
>
> You are deliberately and or ignorantly, I suspect both, equating and
> confusing metaphysics with epistemology.
>
You are deliberately and ignorantly parrotting slogans that you don't
even understand the meaning of. In fact <g>, I haven't said a word
about epistemology yet in this thread.
> > Or as Floyd Ferris put it in his "Why Do you think you think?"
> > According to him and you, it is not a fact that anyone thinks, of
> > anything.
>
> Nope, you cant think about nothing
Nor do you, if your claim is true. But you've missed the contradiction
in Ferris' claim (and yours). In order for you to deny that there are
any subjective facts - facts about what people think - you have to
think that there are no such facts; in which case there is a fact about
what you think. Essentially, you're committing the fallacy of 'stolen
concept.'
> , and when your ideas, or when your
> mental process inside your head is NOT linked to ANY sensory existing
> evidence / matterial, then that mental process is called imagining, of
> the mind nonsensical trash, unreal non-existing, piffle, crap, BS,
> whimsical, subjective crap, godh, *god* and the leftist mystic's *the
> greater good* spring to mind as two such piffleonian of the mind
> invented fucking nonsenses invented inside sick irrational dopey minds.
>
> > If (as you claim) there are no facts about what anyone values,
>
> On the contrary George, it is ME who says, values which are not linked
> directly to facts of sensory data, are imagined invented of the mind
> fucking piffle nonsenses, which man trusts at his peril, gosh George,
> here we go again, E.G. valuing *god* and valuing the retarded leftist
> mystic's *the Greater Good* are two such idiotic values which have
> resulted in countless deaths and human misery for thousands of years.
There you go. If those values were not facts of reality, they couldn't
have affected facts of physical reality in any such way as you
describe. But they have; so they are facts of reality. At the same
time, they're completely subjective - they're facts only because
holding those value imagine that they hold them. Which demonstrates
the existence of subjective facts, as I've defined them. QED
>
> > In reality, according to you, no one has any values; in which case they
> > cannot be based on anything.
>
> Values require standards George
No, they don't. Rationally ordering one's values requires a standard;
perhaps that's what you mean.
> , and the more real e.g. sensory
> reality, those standards are George, then the more real those standards
> are.
'Sensory reality' is not a standard of value. You're confusing
metaphysics with ethics.
> e.g. Human Life (your life) as the standard of ALL moral values,
> is, a pretty good standard to use because it is easy to identify and of
> course George its REAL, it can be poked with a stick.
What a silly basis for morality. Human death is just as easy to
identify, and just as real, but that's no reason to make death one's
standard of moral value; so it can't be a reason to make life one's
standard, either.
> Wanna try and poke me with a stick, to see how impractical, therefore
> irratoinal, therefore immoral your action is? Go on try it George.
I would welcome the opportunity to apply a cane to your bottom. That
can only happen in the subjective reality of imagination, alas.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
George Dance wrote:
> Well, here is the context; I mentioned and defined 'subjective facts'
> as follows:
It doesn't matter a gnat's let nut George, *subjective fact* is an
oxymoron.
> If you're pretending that has anything to with what I have said, you're
> engaged in deliberate misrepresentation.
"Rather, social norms look fully reducible to subjective facts - facts
about what people believe."
That clearly says that a subjective fact is *what people believe*.
A subjective fact is NOTHING but an oxymoron George, and thats IT -
FULL STOP !
> ..... What I claimed ....... was that there are *any subjective facts - facts about
> subjective thoughts, imaginations, beliefs, memories, values, etc.
Which is idotic nonsensical fucking trash.
FFS George, *subjective* MEANS **imagined** MEANS - NOT substantiated
with sensory evidence, ASK YOUR LAWYER check ANY dictionary.
> > , I am saying that
> > facts exist without imagination
>
> Objective facts are mind-ndependent; they exist just fine whether
> they're imagined or not.
Horses and camels do NOT need to be imagined, because they exist
regardless of your imagination.
Your silly god idea HAS to be imagined, because your god does NOT exist
and can NOT exist as ANYTHING BUT imagination.
YES, you can imagine what a horse loooks like, thats called metaphysics
George.
You do NOT ***need*** to imagine horses why? Because they exist in
reality, they exist independent of man's mind.
That IS epistemology, which MEANS, that IS the theory of what it means
when one says, "That is not true you have imagined it."
You have imagined that means you have made it up.
When you say "I can imagine horses" you HAVE changed the subject to
metaphysics.
And just why the fuck you cant, or dont want to believe that, one can
only guess at.
You're a god bothering mystic aren't you George?
> OTOH, subjective facts do not;
That is an oxymoron George.
> If I imagine or think that a 'mental picture of a fact of reality' has
> been formed in my mind, then it's a fact that a mental picture of
> reality is formed in my mind. If I don't think it's a fact, then it's
> not a fact.
FFS that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. A fact is a fact
REGARDLESS of what you think.
You *identify facts* you DONT imagine them.
Yes you can imagine a fact, but that DOES NOT change what the fact IS,
a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact and thats a fact, not imagined,
facts are real, they need NO imagination at all.
> You are deliberately and ignorantly parrotting slogans that you don't
> even understand the meaning of. In fact <g>, I haven't said a word
> about epistemology yet in this thread.
Yeah I know, thats how stupid you are, you cant even recognise when you
are talking about either.
> any subjective facts - facts about what people think - you have to
What people think does NOT change what a fact is, a fact is a fact is a
fact is a fact.
> There you go. If those values were not facts of reality,
Oh my gawd, so George reckons god's a fact of reality.
FFS George, READ MY LIPS, god exists as **imagination you are making
him up in your mind**
Your god at best George, is, *a feeling about a feeeling*, god exists
as an idea, god exists as a result of dopey people's imagination gone
mad, stark raving mad.
They, the fuckwits, invented all sorts of gods to explain what science
couldn't.
And in the year 2006 FFS, to think, that grown adults can tell kids
Santa is not real and yet still hang on to the god crap themselves,
beggers all rational reasoned minds.
> > Values require standards George
>
> No, they don't. Rationally ordering one's values requires a standard;
> perhaps that's what you mean.
I said what I mean and mean what I say.
What standard do YOU use for or to determine YOUR moral values?
Its a very simple question George.
> 'Sensory reality' is not a standard of value. You're confusing
> metaphysics with ethics.
I am saying that unless a standard can be poked with a stick, then its
imagined fucking nonsense, a bull-shit standard originating NO-WHERE
but from the mind.
Shucks George, your silly bloody *god* and leftist mystic's *the
greater good* both exist as two such of the mind bull-shit standards
which have both resulted in so much death and human misery.
> > e.g. Human Life (your life) as the standard of ALL moral values,
> > is, a pretty good standard to use because it is easy to identify and of
> > course George its REAL, it can be poked with a stick.
>
> What a silly basis for morality. Human death is just as easy to
> identify,
That is why I deliberately called it the standard of ****human life****
you dumb cunt, cant you read?
*Human death* and *Human misery* are the standards of your silly god
and the socialist ilk.
Michael Gordge
George Dance
> > >
> > > e.g. Human Life (your life) as the standard of ALL moral values,
> > > is, a pretty good standard to use because it is easy to identify and of
> > > course George its REAL, it can be poked with a stick.
> >
> > What a silly basis for morality. Human death is just as easy to
> > standard of moral value; so it can't be a reason to make life one's
>
> That is why I deliberately called it the standard of ****human life****
> you dumb cunt, cant you read?
Of course I can read. You've decided to pick ****human life**** as
your "standard of value," rather than, say, ****human death****,
because it's possible to poke living humans with a stick. But it's
just as possible to poke dead humans with a stick. Which means that
you don't have a good reason for picking ****human life****, since it's
just as good a reason to pick ****human death**** instead.
> *Human death* and *Human misery* are the standards of your silly god
> and the socialist ilk.
Judging by what you've said about it, your choice of ****human life****
rather than ****human death**** as your "standard of morality" was
purely whimsical.
>
> Michael Gordge
George Dance
> George Dance wrote:
>
> > Well, here is the context; I mentioned and defined 'subjective facts'
> > as follows:
>
> It doesn't matter a gnat's let nut George, *subjective fact* is an
> oxymoron.
> > If you're pretending that has anything to with what I have said, you're
> > engaged in deliberate misrepresentation.
>
> "Rather, social norms look fully reducible to subjective facts - facts
> about what people believe."
>
> That clearly says that a subjective fact is *what people believe*.
Right. And there are facts about what people believe.
> A subjective fact is NOTHING but an oxymoron George, and thats IT
So that's your story and you're sticking to it, eh?
> FULL STOP !
>
> > ..... What I claimed ....... was that there are *any subjective facts - facts about
> > subjective thoughts, imaginations, beliefs, memories, values, etc.
>
> Which is idotic nonsensical fucking trash.
>
Your whole line of argument here is 'idiotic nonsensical fucking
trash,' unfortunately.
> FFS George, *subjective* MEANS **imagined** MEANS - NOT substantiated
> with sensory evidence
You imagine your thoughts, imaginations, beliefs, memories and values.
You don't have any sensory evidence of them.
> , ASK YOUR LAWYER check ANY dictionary.
>
> > > , I am saying that
> > > facts exist without imagination
> >
> > Objective facts are mind-ndependent; they exist just fine whether
> > they're imagined or not.
>
> Horses and camels do NOT need to be imagined, because they exist
> regardless of your imagination.
But your thoughts, imaginations, beliefs, momories and values do not
exist regardless of your imagination. That's why they're not
objective facts; understand?
> Your silly [...] idea HAS to be imagined, because [it] does NOT exist
> and can NOT exist as ANYTHING BUT imagination.
Tht's the same for your thoughts, Mike. They don't exist anywhere but
in your mind.
> YES, you can imagine what a horse loooks like, thats called metaphysics
> George.
>
> You do NOT ***need*** to imagine horses why? Because they exist in
> reality, they exist independent of man's mind.
>
> That IS epistemology
No; whether horses exist 'independent of man's mind' is metaphysics.
And you're misusing the terminology. Existence 'independent of man's
mind' does not mean the same thing as
"existence in reality."
>, which MEANS, that IS the theory of what it means
> when one says, "That is not true you have imagined it."
> You have imagined that means you have made it up.
Right; to call your thoughts, memories, values, etc., subjective, is to
say that you made them up; that your mind created them.
> When you say "I can imagine horses" you HAVE changed the subject to
> metaphysics.
>
> And just why the fuck you cant, or dont want to believe that, one can
> only guess at.
In turn, one can only guess at what you're trying to say. Do you think
that what you believe, value, or remember is not a matter of fact? Or
that it's not subjective?
> You're a god bothering mystic aren't you George?
>
> > OTOH, subjective facts do not;
>
> That is an oxymoron George.
>
> > If I imagine or think that a 'mental picture of a fact of reality' has
> > been formed in my mind, then it's a fact that a mental picture of
> > reality is formed in my mind. If I don't think it's a fact, then it's
> > not a fact.
>
> FFS that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. A fact is a fact
> REGARDLESS of what you think.
According to what you're claiming, nothing can 'make the slightest bit
of sense' - because in order for something to make sense, it has to
make sense REGARDLESS of what anyone thinks; which is contradictory.
>
> You *identify facts* you DONT imagine them.
And just how do you 'identify' what your beliefs, values, and memories
are, without using your 'imagination'? Through 'sensory evidence?'
What 'sensory evidence?'
> Yes you can imagine a fact, but that DOES NOT change what the fact IS,
It can; if you imagine that you like sex with animals, say, then it's a
fact about you that you like having sex with animals - if you don't
imagine that you do, then it's not a fact that you do - if you imagine
that you don't, then it's a fact that you don't. That's what it means
for something to be a 'subjective fact.'
> a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact and thats a fact, not imagined,
> facts are real, they need NO imagination at all.
??? How in the hell could you like to have sex with animals (for
example), without thinking that you do?
> > You are deliberately and ignorantly parrotting slogans that you don't
> > even understand the meaning of. In fact <g>, I haven't said a word
> > about epistemology yet in this thread.
>
> Yeah I know, thats how stupid you are, you cant even recognise when you
> are talking about either.
>
> > any subjective facts - facts about what people think - you have to
>
> What people think does NOT change what a fact is, a fact is a fact is a
> fact is a fact.
??? How in the hell could you remember having had sex with animals (for
example), without thinking that you remember?
> > There you go. If those values were not facts of reality,
>
> Oh my gawd, so George reckons [values are] a fact of reality.
>
Certainly. If I value x, it's a fact that I value x - If I don't, it's
not a fact.
> FFS George, READ MY LIPS, god exists as **imagination you are making
> him up in your mind**
I'm not interested in your "god", Mike.
> [...] god at best George, is, *a feeling about a feeeling*, god exists
> as an idea, god exists as a result of dopey people's imagination gone
> mad, stark raving mad.
>
> They, the fuckwits, invented all sorts of gods to explain what science
> couldn't.
>
> And in the year 2006 FFS, to think, that grown adults can tell kids
> Santa is not real and yet still hang on to the god crap themselves,
> beggers all rational reasoned minds.
>
> > > Values require standards George
> >
> > No, they don't. Rationally ordering one's values requires a standard;
> > perhaps that's what you mean.
>
> I said what I mean and mean what I say.
>
> What standard do YOU use for or to determine YOUR moral values?
>
> Its a very simple question George.
>
> > 'Sensory reality' is not a standard of value. You're confusing
> > metaphysics with ethics.
>
> I am saying that unless a standard can be poked with a stick, then its
> imagined fucking nonsense, a bull-shit standard originating NO-WHERE
> but from the mind.
Well, you can't poke a 'standard' with a stick - you can only invent
one using your imagination - which means that you'd have to conlude, if
you had any idea of rational consistency, that all of them were
"fucking nonsense."
> Shucks George, [...] silly bloody *god* and leftist mystic's *the
> greater good* both exist as two such of the mind bull-shit standards
> which have both resulted in so much death and human misery.
>
> > > e.g. Human Life (your life) as the standard of ALL moral values,
> > > is, a pretty good standard to use because it is easy to identify and of
> > > course George its REAL, it can be poked with a stick.
> >
> > What a silly basis for morality. Human death is just as easy to
> > identify,
>
> That is why I deliberately called it the standard of ****human life****
> you dumb cunt, cant you read?
>
> *Human death* and *Human misery* are the standards of [...] silly god