You Kant manipulate me!
So we all know that Ayn Rand's principle of Objectivism is basically just a different way of referring to Egoism--it's the promotion of rational self-interest. Egoism denounces the pursuit of the interests of others (altruism) to the exclusion of one's self and stands on the basic question of, "What's in it for me?" The argument behind this ethical principle contains three premises: 1. Everyone deserves happiness, 2. Each of us is uniquely positioned to know what will make us happy, 3. Altruism is not universalizable; therefore, one ought to pursue one's own interests exclusively.
In the novel The Fountainhead, the primary theme is the primacy of the individual. One must remain true to one's self, uphold individuality, and act independently from society. "Society has herd mentality and individuals must act selfishly in order to be free." Society is seen as that which goes against the moral good because it extinguishes individuality and talent. Ultimately, the novel comes down to the struggle for individuality, and if one does not uphold individuality and assert one's self, they are seen as weak.
Aspects of Rand's philosophy not only touch upon Egoism, but also can be traced back to philosophers such as Aristotle, Kant, and Nietzsche to name a few. The importance of reason is reflected in The Fountainhead, and is viewed as the virtue that, "...sets man free." This promotion of reason was a primary virtue held by Aristotle who believed in, "Reason, excellently applied." In Rand's novel reason and logic engages the mind and if dissected, relationships, buildings, personalities can be traced back to such values. Kant also upheld the conclusion that reason must be the foundation of morality. He believed sentiments and passions to be subjective and therefore subject to corruption. He was also against manipulations--that which encapsulates Ellsworth Toohey. Nietzsche is evidently present in The Fountainhead as Rand fiercely opposes herd mentality and promotes individuality. Nietzsche claimed there are two kinds of people, the slave and the superior person. Slave morality are those of patience, forgiveness, tolerance, charity, etc. The superior person or elitest individually defines his morality based on that which motivates him. However, unlike Rand, Nietzsche believes morality to be the function of emotion. Rand claims that emotion and sentiment, "Confuses the mind and compromises idividualism." Yet, the two philosophers basically promote the pursuit of individuality.
As for Ayn Rand being labeled a source of recent economic recession, one can easily create a proof concluding Rand's responsibility. However, one can equally create such a proof concluding her innocence. Executives of firms such as Goldman Sachs can be viewed more as Ellsworth Toohey figures rather than egoistic Howard Roark figures. True, such firms thrive on egoism and personal gain; however, methods of obtaining such gain relies on the manipulation of others, and the herd mentality of the masses. They fight for control over the weak and gain from the losses of their followers. Although they may try to promote the ideals of Rand, and claim to be upholding her philosophy, in actuality they are banking on the hopes of society remaining in their slave mentality.
In the novel The Fountainhead, the primary theme is the primacy of the individual. One must remain true to one's self, uphold individuality, and act independently from society. "Society has herd mentality and individuals must act selfishly in order to be free." Society is seen as that which goes against the moral good because it extinguishes individuality and talent. Ultimately, the novel comes down to the struggle for individuality, and if one does not uphold individuality and assert one's self, they are seen as weak.
Aspects of Rand's philosophy not only touch upon Egoism, but also can be traced back to philosophers such as Aristotle, Kant, and Nietzsche to name a few. The importance of reason is reflected in The Fountainhead, and is viewed as the virtue that, "...sets man free." This promotion of reason was a primary virtue held by Aristotle who believed in, "Reason, excellently applied." In Rand's novel reason and logic engages the mind and if dissected, relationships, buildings, personalities can be traced back to such values. Kant also upheld the conclusion that reason must be the foundation of morality. He believed sentiments and passions to be subjective and therefore subject to corruption. He was also against manipulations--that which encapsulates Ellsworth Toohey. Nietzsche is evidently present in The Fountainhead as Rand fiercely opposes herd mentality and promotes individuality. Nietzsche claimed there are two kinds of people, the slave and the superior person. Slave morality are those of patience, forgiveness, tolerance, charity, etc. The superior person or elitest individually defines his morality based on that which motivates him. However, unlike Rand, Nietzsche believes morality to be the function of emotion. Rand claims that emotion and sentiment, "Confuses the mind and compromises idividualism." Yet, the two philosophers basically promote the pursuit of individuality.
As for Ayn Rand being labeled a source of recent economic recession, one can easily create a proof concluding Rand's responsibility. However, one can equally create such a proof concluding her innocence. Executives of firms such as Goldman Sachs can be viewed more as Ellsworth Toohey figures rather than egoistic Howard Roark figures. True, such firms thrive on egoism and personal gain; however, methods of obtaining such gain relies on the manipulation of others, and the herd mentality of the masses. They fight for control over the weak and gain from the losses of their followers. Although they may try to promote the ideals of Rand, and claim to be upholding her philosophy, in actuality they are banking on the hopes of society remaining in their slave mentality.

5 Comments:
If The Fountainhead is about self-interest then why is architecture the art form of choice, which is a very public and "crowd dependent" art form? Obviously there would be considerably less narrative conflict in the story with another art form as central but if all Roark cared about was expressing himself without compromise shouldn't he have chosen another form of expression that didn't depend on so many for its creation and that wasn't so prominently visible to the public and open for critique and approval as a building. He obviously wants his art to be for others to view, live, work, have as part of their every day life or he would just paint pictures or write songs for himself. If selfishness is a virtue of the overman than I don’t believe that the overman would even care to waste time creating buildings for the public. Why does Roark care?
Art first needs to make the creator happy and I think everything else is just a bonus. The nature of architecture goes far beyond just self satisfaction. Is Roark conflicted and just doesn't know it? Or does he actually care about other people beside himself as can be seen in the Heller House? I guess I just don't see architecture as only for the individual that creates it and therefore not a selfish act, even if the creator doesn't know it.
Only on page 220 BTW.
PS not being negative just want ot promote some discussion for the dumb people like me.
first of all rand had to address the practical needs of writing a novel; it wouldn't have been fun for anyone if she had written about a guy who daydreams all day, though I think this would have been a valid ubermensch vocation. There had to be a protagonist and antagonists and a battle ground on which they could wage the plot.
second of all, in order to understand The Fountainhead and Howard Roark, you have to keep in mind that she drew heavily on the life and work of Frank Lloyd Wright. Many of Roark's qualities were taken directly from Wright.
third of all, Roark was Rand's ubermensch. She created him in order to postulate what Nietzsche's abstract and intentionally elusive ideal might look like in flesh and blood, living and working in a modern context and in relation to all of us untermenschen. Roark was an artistic expression of Nietzsche's philosophical hypothesis. Rand was a third-rate philosopher; she was an epigone of Nietzsche's. It's likely that he would have been disappointed in her, which you can't really knock her for since she was first and foremost a novelist. Nietzsche was an intellectual giant compared to Rand.
It's kind of pointless for me to make any comments about Nietzsche's philosophy itself since I haven't studied it enough to comprehend it fluently, but I think it's safe to say that any problems that one might have with Rand's philosophy are likely well-founded and not worth addressing to any serious degree--if there is a serious philosophical argument to be made, it would be with Nietzsche. What Rand is doing is dressing up his creation in the personage of Roark.
As far as Roark and architecture go, I think that it's perfectly possible to make something for someone and still do so selfishly. Although the buildings that Roark designed were made to provide something for someone, the creative act itself wasn't an anyway adultered by the will of anyone else. Its creation was a pure product of Roark's will. On the other hand, Roark's foil, Peter Keating, had almost no will whatsoever. Keating only became an architect because his mother wanted him to (which is kind of ironic because Wright's mother was dead set on her son becoming an architect, even before he was born). Keating couldn't have cared less for architecture. To him it only served as an avenue to fame: finding one's self-worth in the eyes of others.
If possible, Roark would have built houses if he were the only person on earth. It wasn't necessarily the final form of the art that really mattered, rather it was the artistic soul that Roark breathed into that form and being able to see as reality what had only been a cerebral spark.
Keating judged the value of his work on how other people judged his work. If they said it was crap, he thought it was crap. If they said it was genius, he thought it was genius. Not only did Roark not care about what others thought of his work, but being an ubermensch, I don't think he even had the capacity to care about what others thought of his work. His valuation of his work was 100% selfish in that it didn't consider the valuation of others. That's a different definition of artistic selfishness, but it's still central to Rand's interpretation of the concept. I think it explains the name The Fountainhead too. The ubermensch is the primary source of all valuations and creations and everything.
Another thing, when Roark built the Heller house he said that he didn't think of Heller himself once when he was designing it, he thought only of the house that he would want to live in. Later on Heller said that he never realized that a building could make him a better, grander person, but that's exactly what Roark's design had done. Roark said he knew that it would. This is another way in which architecture is selfish. Just like Roark wants to live in a world with nothing but perfect buildings, he also wants to live in a world full of Sean Xavier Michaels and Dominiques and Stephen Mallorys versus a world full of second-handers like Ellsworth Toohey and Katie Hallsey and Peter Keating. If his architecture serves the secondary function of making people like Heller a little better, then it's selfish twice. that's all i got so far: Roark is based on Wright and Nietzsche's ubermensch and Roark builds to see his soul externalized, he is the only judge of the value of his work, what others say about it changes it in no way. it's selfishness not like greed but more like self-ness.
How much larger can you present your soul and inner artistic ideas than in a building? An attempt to transcend the human body and tower above everything? Two-hundred floors of vanity?
More like two-hundred floors of "self" rather than "vanity."
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home