Is this offensive?

[Guest]

UNCLEBILL
Because the fundamental principle of the Libertarian is limited government, essentially, people of self-government, i. e., decision best left in the hands of the private individual are to be left there, not made by some central planner bureaucrat in Washington, the state capitol or City Hall. Government's only LEGITIMATE purpose is the protection of its citizens' rights..

I think the point I’m trying to make is:
My vote should always be offered on an individual basis. Regardless of the ‘party’ the recipient represents. Period.

And for you to say otherwise – seems to me to be a contradiction of the theory you subscribe to. (But I’m not going to MAKE you agree with me, eh).

UNCLEBILL
And how many of those for whom you cast your educated vote continue to support the Socialist Welfare state, the War on Drugs, the Social Security Ponzi scheme, the intrusion of government into private lives and affairs of its citizens, and a myriad of other atrocities including Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws?

It’s not possible for me to furnish an answer to that, eh. I wouldn’t know. Certainly, none of them have removed those problems.
And – does it matter? I’m not going through life expecting them to do things for me. My ability to be who I want to be in America seems pretty damned good. They’re doing enough to enable that for me. I’m grateful enough to leave them alone (and if I see something I particularly DON’T like (‘Anti-terrorism Bill’ for instance) – I say something about it).
I should mention - I don’t get wrapped up in politics much. When it’s time for me to vote: I try to pay attention and choose someone I admire, or respect the most. I don’t think I’ve ever voted for someone who saw everything exactly as I do. It’s never been a perfect vote. And I might get pissed off if they do something I totally disagree with. But I don’t watch them expecting them to DO what I want.
(Isn’t my angle also in line with Ayn Rand’s?)

You’re definitely more aware of the political scenario than I am. I was commenting more on the ‘philosophy’ front. Maybe you should run for office is you’re so interested in changing the problems you listed, yes?

UNCLEBILL
Capitalism is an economic system in which market forces determine the outcome. It does not include subsidies for either individuals or corporations. It does not permit stealing assets from one person or group to bestow gratuitously on another individual or group. It does not achieve certain economic behavior by fiat and coercion. .

Is there somewhere else that’s doing capitalism better than we are? If you want to earn, and you have a good product, in this country – you WILL earn.

UNCLEBILL
On the off chance that someone else reads the post who doesn't/hasn't made the same exclusion. .

Okay. So you DO care about other people, eh? Hehehehe…

The politician thing – to me, people undertake that career for all the wrong reasons. There are some exceptions. Mostly, I think they do it out of powerlust and greed. Or the need to stand above others – to serve their arrogance.

UNCLEBILL
The problem is that you are expecting honor from career politicians. .

No I’m not. You are.

UNCLEBILL
. If they had any honor or principles, they wouldn't be career politicians; they would have productive roles in society .

Exactly. You just proved my argument above, no?

UNCLEBILL
Any time you make a credit purchase, you are doing so. So how do you avoid paying various taxes since they ARE DEMANDED of you? .

According to your doctrine, since you’re demanding things from politicians – you should be willing to pay taxes for their services. No? Roads, armies, police – all these things cost money. They enable your current existence. Ya gotta pay the piper. Sure, lots of it is getting shoveled around in places I’d rather not shovel it to (places where it isn’t getting earned). But I’m not expecting perfection. All things considered – we’ve got it pretty good here.
You could buy an island and go do your thing there if you want total control of your money, no?


UNCLEBILL
I'm not quite sure what you mean by her not subscribing fully to her own theory. .

I found that part of the book very interesting (Roark/Wynand). Seems to me she was ‘working out’ her philosophy in a situation of mutual admiration (searching for the answer herself). Would Roark still be able to disassociate himself when faced with that? (Since the philosophy means: you’re not supposed to make a sacrifice of self for another, without payment.) Clearly, Wynand wasn’t able to. I wasn’t satisfied that Roark was able to either (mentally). I think she recognized a flaw in that situation. I’m not sure she proved to herself that Roark had it right. I think she recognized that some sacrifice is also an act to be held in high esteem. That to offer something without expecting payment, because you simply want to provide that for another - is maybe not such a despicable act. As long as it’s the decision of the individual to do so. (Of course, Wynand came crumbling down because of his choice. So maybe I just didn’t see it right… ).
I don’t think I worded that very well. I probably didn’t make better sense of it to you. AND – I could be wrong. Never asked her personally, eh.

I think her theory was based on admiration of the idea. I don’t think she was able to prove it as a truly functional, and beneficial – premise. Cuz I think Roark is a little hollow. In fact, he didn’t appear ‘happy’ – unless he was around Wynand. Relaxing. I think she realized the ‘need’ for that. Which means you can’t simply be a self-support system. And it would have been MORE impressive, if Roark could admit that.
I realize I’m kind of losing clear direction here – so I’ll stop.


UNCLEBILL
A cognitive mechanism is the means by which you gather information, process it and integrate it into your cumulative base of knowledge; the means of learning. Emotion is a response mechanism. The sensation of joy or happiness in and of itself provides little information. .

Is the idea of life to be a thinking machine? Or to experience joy?

If the reward for your ability to remain focused, knowledgeable, and able to act - is JOY! Doesn’t that make emotion necessary? Without the ‘response’ – what’s the purpose of the action?
I guess I don’t want to just be a ‘cognitive mechanism’.

Emotion DOES provide the solution. If your emotional response is a feeling of satisfaction or joy – your thinking was reasonable. (Assuming it wasn’t gained from harming another).

UNCLEBILL
Similarly, an emotion, e. g., unhappiness can result from any number of things. It may be transitory or it may be persistent. In order to change it, one must determine the cause and then make changes which will bring about the desired result. .

You just proved my point again. The ‘desired result’ is: ‘happy’. An emotion.

UNCLEBILL
What the politicians are doing to me and my progeny does elicit an emotional response because that is very personal .

And doesn’t that (emotion) drive your desire to change it?
I think I’m winning this particular argument.

UNCLEBILL
Anyone can offer an emotional appeal and get people aroused to follow. But those who follow the emotional appeal are not employing their mind as their means of guidance .

I wouldn’t completely agree with that. It would depend on the speaker, and the listener. The emotion may just be a strong enabler of the desire to ‘get it done’.
But I understand what you’re getting at.


Don’t forget to feel, man.

 

[XXplorher]

ooops - that was me above. The computer just behaved irrationally...

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by XXplorher
I think the point I'm trying to make is:
My vote should always be offered on an individual basis. Regardless of the 'party' the recipient represents. Period.

And for you to say otherwise - seems to me to be a contradiction of the theory you subscribe to. (But I'm not going to MAKE you agree with me, eh).

For those who make reasoned, deliberate decisions as you say you do, my offer or suggestion is not of any weight. For some of those others, perhaps I can enlist their help to protect my freedom as they vote to reclaim theirs. To convince them to vote so is to my benefit not because I am going to get something from government as a result of their support in the voting both. Rather, the benefit to me is that government's illegitimate power over my life and property is reduced. But they achieve the same benefit as do I.

Originally posted by XXplorher
You're definitely more aware of the political scenario than I am. I was commenting more on the 'philosophy' front. Maybe you should run for office is you're so interested in changing the problems you listed, yes?

As I've noted before, my awareness is more philosophical then political. Also, I could never be elected to political office in the current environment simply because I will not lie to get elected and campaigning honestly on issues would certainly assure my defeat.

Originally posted by XXplorher
Is there somewhere else that's doing capitalism better than we are? If you want to earn, and you have a good product, in this country - you WILL earn.

My point is, no one is doing capitalism, not even the USA.

Originally posted by XXplorher
According to your doctrine, since you're demanding things from politicians - you should be willing to pay taxes for their services. No? Roads, armies, police - all these things cost money. They enable your current existence. Ya gotta pay the piper. Sure, lots of it is getting shoveled around in places I'd rather not shovel it to (places where it isn't getting earned). But I'm not expecting perfection. All things considered - we've got it pretty good here.
You could buy an island and go do your thing there if you want total control of your money, no?

But I'm not demanding anything from politicians except my freedom and for my rights to be respected and protected. The former costs nothing and the latter costs are moderate. There are legitimate functions of government and those I willingly support financially. It is the portion of government that is illegitimate that I despise and want to see disestablished, the functions where government has presumed the role of criminal. And that is detrimental to all, not just me and my family.

Originally posted by XXplorher
I found that part of the book very interesting (Roark/Wynand). Seems to me she was 'working out' her philosophy in a situation of mutual admiration (searching for the answer herself). Would Roark still be able to disassociate himself when faced with that? (Since the philosophy means: you're not supposed to make a sacrifice of self for another, without payment.) Clearly, Wynand wasn't able to. I wasn't satisfied that Roark was able to either (mentally). I think she recognized a flaw in that situation. I'm not sure she proved to herself that Roark had it right. I think she recognized that some sacrifice is also an act to be held in high esteem. That to offer something without expecting payment, because you simply want to provide that for another - is maybe not such a despicable act. As long as it's the decision of the individual to do so. (Of course, Wynand came crumbling down because of his choice. So maybe I just didn't see it right? ).
I don't think I worded that very well. I probably didn't make better sense of it to you. AND - I could be wrong. Never asked her personally, eh.

I think her theory was based on admiration of the idea. I don't think she was able to prove it as a truly functional, and beneficial - premise. Cuz I think Roark is a little hollow. In fact, he didn't appear 'happy' - unless he was around Wynand. Relaxing. I think she realized the 'need' for that. Which means you can't simply be a self-support system. And it would have been MORE impressive, if Roark could admit that.
I realize I'm kind of losing clear direction here - so I'll stop.

My perception is considerably different and the explanation may get protracted but I'll try to keep it constrained.

From my perception, she was demonstrating the difference in the strength of character and determination between the two men. During the book, on several occasions Roark opened his own office, had a few jobs but for lack of clients, closed his business. Subsequently, he worked as a day laborer in whatever capacity he could find to stay connected to his chosen field of endeavor, architecture, albeit it as the most minor cog in the huge corporate wheel.

And he was happy in the company of a number of people. Dominique being one, the sculptor (Stephen Mallory?) who created the statue of Dominique, the first man who employed him and a couple of others whom I forget now in addition to Wynand. If you recall Roark was also quite happy as he worked on the Cortlandt Project for Peter Keating even though he was not paid for his work by even so much as having his name associated with it. It seemed to me that Wynand was given the level of significance in Roark's life because he was successful on a level comparable to what Roark achieved near the end of the book.

So from these things and from his love affair with Dominique, I hardly see him as hollow; merely focused, albeit quite intensely. Also, recall that he knew early in the book that Dominique would be his wife but he had to wait through her two marriages before it came to pass. By way of explanation, he told her that he would be strong enough for both of them until she realized her strength and was ready to come to him.

And the difference Rand used between Roark and Wynand was the weakness that caused Wynand to betray his values and publish the editorial condemning Roark. It was this betrayal of his most fundamental values that was the motivation for his suicide. He was unable or unwilling to live with the betrayal of the values which he recognized in himself to some extent and which he saw uncompromisingly embodied in Roark.

To the idea of sacrifice, this was anathema to Rand. She offered a definition for her philosophical enterprise which clearly drew the context to make sacrifice unacceptable and I understand her concept and likewise reject as absolutely immoral the idea of sacrifice.

In her philosophical context, sacrifice is the exchange of a value for a non-value. If you have something which has value to you and you exchange it for something which you do not want or value, that is a sacrifice and is immoral.

But if you have something of value and give it to another because you desire to do so, i. e., you value the appreciation, happiness or comfort they derive from it, that is not a sacrifice and thus is completely moral. You have exchanged something of value for something you hold of comparable value.

For example, I have given gifts to people over the span of my life where I expected no payment, no undue consideration, etc. I did so simply because I wanted that person to have whatever the gift was. To me, it was of at least equal value to know that the person had the item. In my context, it was a purely selfish act which very few people would understand it to be; in fact most people would consider it altruistic but most assuredly it was not. In fact, the gift was the act of satisfying a personal desire of mine.

For another example, if you are solicited to donate to support a cause which you oppose, it is immoral to contribute even one penny because you are in essence by your donation, betraying your values. On the other hand, if you are solicited to support a cause which you value, then your donation is completely moral.

Likewise, if your financial means are limited and you have the choice to donate to a cause or to purchase something else, perchance a new pair of shoes for you wife or child, then the question of morality becomes one of relative value. You must decide which is of greater importance to you; supporting the cause or purchasing the item. But to choose the lesser value is to make the immoral choice.

Originally posted by XXplorher
Is the idea of life to be a thinking machine? Or to experience joy?

No, what I'm advocating is keeping the two in their proper perspective.

 

[lilminx]

What the hell happened to this thread? I asked a simple question, and NOW look at what's going on! Geez! Intelligent, yet rambling debate...

 

[Ask For More]

lilminx

You've created a monster!

 

[lilminx]

Re: lilminx

You've created a monster!

Lol- I know- I feel like Dr. Frankenstein.... or is that Dr. Frank-N-Furter?

 

[Ask For More]

Professor Minx...hmm...

 

[lilminx]

Professor Minx...hmm...

I like the sound of that...

 

[XXplorher]

UNCLEBILL

perhaps I can enlist their help to protect my freedom as they vote to reclaim theirs. To convince them to vote so is to my benefit not because I am going to get something from government as a result of their support in the voting both. Rather, the benefit to me is that government's illegitimate power over my life and property is reduced. But they achieve the same benefit as do I.


Ah – so you’re not really interested in them using their own minds? More interested that they serve your purpose? Or enable it. (I don’t mean that to sound rude) This would also be a difference in our interests. I want them to use their own minds. That’s what I’m after. I’m starving for it even! I don’t necessarily just want them to agree with things I say.
Which is why I find this discussion satisfying – cuz you’re using your own mind.

Let me put it this way – if I were a parent, I would like to expose and enable my child to as much as possible. However, I’m not interested in steering them into a direction I’ve determined as satisfying. I want them to determine that for themSELVES. (The flipside of that is - I’m sure there are things I WON’T allow. But the idea would be to encourage as many opportunities as possible.) This is what *I* find satisfying. Doesn’t mean everyone should have that same interest either (sure would be nice though ; P).

During this pursuit of mine – I’ve certainly been disappointed, discouraged and exasperated. Certainly wonder if any of it matters. But ultimately, I don’t care. I have no other choice. This is who I am and what I want. It’s for me as well. (But I’m not in a position to demand people use their own minds, eh. That would be counter to the idea).

UNCLEBILL

Also, I could never be elected to political office in the current environment simply because I will not lie to get elected and campaigning honestly on issues would certainly assure my defeat

But what about the Libertarian party? Now I’m confused…

UNCLEBILL

My point is, no one is doing capitalism, not even the USA.


And my point is – no one is doing capitalism BETTER than the USA.

UNCLEBILL

And he was happy in the company of a number of people. Dominique being one


I don’t agree that he WAS. That relationship, to me, was ALSO – labor. He could never let his guard down, and relax. Like he did with Wynand. I also find that a flaw in Roark, because that means he wasn’t able to respect her as he did Wynand. That could be argued heavily to either side.

UNCLEBILL

the sculptor (Stephen Mallory?)


Who I dug (yeah, you got the name right. I was trying to come up with it yesterday myself). But Roark wasn’t able to fully respect him either (because he had mostly succumbed).

Closest he had to Wynand was the guy who referred to him as ‘Red’. The electrician. Can’t remember his name either.

UNCLEBILL

Cortlandt Project


I don’t think he was happy in that effort either. He was simply doing it because he HAD to. Cuz he can’t handle things done incorrectly (which is also why he blew it up – he wouldn’t have anything that was ‘his’ done incorrectly), and he saw an opportunity to test a new design theory. (Also, that was after he had found a man he could respect in Wynand. Which settled his mind enough to lighten up the load in other areas of his life. In fact, I believe the building was altered while he was on an extended Yacht vacation with Wynand? )

I think Wynand was significant in Roark’s life because he was as significant in ACTION as Roark. (Though he sold out to public want for his accomplishments. Roark never did that. And that would be the difference in respect from the reader’s perspective).

Let me mention again – I deeply respect his focused intensity. And firm denouncement of altering HIS way for someone else’s. But it isn’t what I aspire to be. That kind of determination, yes. But not the method. You don’t need to convince me of respect for the character, believe me. I just think he was hollow for his efforts – ‘till he found mutual respect in Wynand (the same thing is happening in Atlas Shrugged with Reardon and D’Anconia. I much prefer Dagny to Dominique, but I don’t think the male protagonist (Reardon) had that pure joy with Dagny either. Personally, I don’t find that healthy.) And what that means to me is – you can’t simply go it alone. As admiring as that may be. And therefore – it’s a flaw in her theory.

UNCLEBILL

By way of explanation, he told her that he would be strong enough for both of them until she realized her strength and was ready to come to him.


Yeah. I remember. (In particular – I remember that).

UNCLEBILL

And the difference Rand used between Roark and Wynand was the weakness that caused Wynand to betray his values and publish the editorial condemning Roark.


BINGO! And THIS is where we disagree, in theory. I feel Wynand was stronger than ever in his resolve to originally fight for Roark. He was earning back what he had thrown away on that sidewalk of blood as a teenager. He was exercising an ethical response that showed true character. (Though Roark would rather it never offered – to his credit, it wasn’t his place to decide that for Wynand). And for his efforts he lost everything… except his integrity (IMO). That’s the way I see it. I realize that isn’t what Ayn Rand was saying there, specifically. But I disagree with her on what’s truly important (in THIS specific). She seemed to be saying – he lost it all because he let his work get personal. He was sacrificing for another. I wholly disagree with that thinking. Then – he screwed the pooch and wasted all that as well. Obviously – foolish. Why? Integrity is more important than money - always. THAT’S why.
I definitely hold Roark in higher esteem. Because he NEVER tossed off his ethics and integrity, as Wynand did to build his empire to begin with.

What do you think she meant by costing Wynand everything for his defense of Roark? If he had stayed true to it and lost it all (financially)– do you think she would be advocating that? Or is she simply saying ‘The minute you let consideration for someone else yo uhold in high esteem alter your direction – is the moment you lose the battle’. Cuz I personally think: The minute you let consideration for yourSELF alter someone ELSE’S direction you hold in high esteem – is the moment you lose the battle.
I know she was mostly saying ‘stay true to your convictions’ (which I obviously agree with), but what is your personal thinking on the ‘consideration’ aspect of it?

UNCLEBILL

He was unable or unwilling to live with the betrayal of the values which he recognized in himself to some extent and which he saw uncompromisingly embodied in Roark


Absolutely.

UNCLEBILL

In her philosophical context, sacrifice is the exchange of a value for a non-value. If you have something which has value to you and you exchange it for something which you do not want or value, that is a sacrifice and is immoral.


What if you’re making the sacrifice for something, or someONE you value – not monetarily. For example – Dominique. That’s based on an emotion. Which you argued against earlier. So what’s your take on that?

UNCLEBILL

But if you have something of value and give it to another because you desire to do so, i. e., you value the appreciation, happiness or comfort they derive from it, that is not a sacrifice and thus is completely moral. You have exchanged something of value for something you hold of comparable value.


Nevermind. You answered it. And that means emotion counts.

UNCLEBILL

To me, it was of at least equal value to know that the person had the item. In my context, it was a purely selfish act which very few people would understand it to be; in fact most people would consider it altruistic but most assuredly it was not. In fact, the gift was the act of satisfying a personal desire of mine


Understood. In the context of what I’ve been saying here then – we disagree less than I percieved.

UNCLEBILL

You must decide which is of greater importance to you; supporting the cause or purchasing the item. But to choose the lesser value is to make the immoral choice.


Yup.

Xxplorher
Is the idea of life to be a thinking machine? Or to experience joy?
UNCLEBILL

No, what I'm advocating is keeping the two in their proper perspective.


Well said.


As for the other posters following: If you’d rather not engage in a thinking debate. Feel free to disassociate yourselves, eh. Had you read the debate – you’d realize that’s EXACTLY what we’re talking about. (And seems to me to be right in line with your original post, no? What we’re talking about here is that you THINK, for yourSELVES). It’s sad, in my view, that no one else is interested.

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by XXplorher
Ah - so you're not really interested in them using their own minds? More interested that they serve your purpose? Or enable it. (I don't mean that to sound rude) This would also be a difference in our interests. I want them to use their own minds. That's what I'm after. I'm starving for it even! I don't necessarily just want them to agree with things I say.
Which is why I find this discussion satisfying - cuz you're using your own mind.

If they're not using their minds, their vote is potentially detrimental to me. If I can recruit their vote to avert harm from myself, (and from them in the bargain), I am not using them in the commonly perceived parlance.

I am not interested in using them "to serve my purpose" as you put it; rather I'm "using" them to prevent others from using me (and them in the bargain) for those others' purposes.

By convincing them to vote to preserve or restore my freedom, they are voting to do the same for themselves since what I support in the political realm does not threaten them by the initiation of force. And remember, my freedom is not preserved at the expense of another; it is my innate right and equally theirs so they are voting to their benefit and that it is coincidentally a benefit to mine is just reality, not a benefit that I derive at their expense. On the other hand, what they vote for otherwise, may well (and most often does) threaten me by subjecting me to coercive support of that which I oppose.

Originally posted by XXplorher
But what about the Libertarian party? Now I'm confused?

Sadly it may be universally true regarding Libertarian candidates. Since they do not offer to steal from one person for another's benefit, they are virtually assuring their political defeat in today's America.

Originally posted by XXplorher
And my point is - no one is doing capitalism BETTER than the USA.

I grant the truth of your statement. However, I taken exception to the potential for deception by its structure. So very few people know what capitalism really is that they read your statement and presume that the USA is doing capitalism.

Originally posted by XXplorher
I don't agree that he WAS. That relationship, to me, was ALSO - labor. He could never let his guard down, and relax. Like he did with Wynand. I also find that a flaw in Roark, because that means he wasn't able to respect her as he did Wynand. That could be argued heavily to either side.

Perceptual difference, I think; not philosophical.

Cortlandt Project

Originally posted by XXplorher
I don't think he was happy in that effort either. He was simply doing it because he HAD to. Cuz he can't handle things done incorrectly (which is also why he blew it up - he wouldn't have anything that was 'his' done incorrectly), and he saw an opportunity to test a new design theory. (Also, that was after he had found a man he could respect in Wynand. Which settled his mind enough to lighten up the load in other areas of his life. In fact, I believe the building was altered while he was on an extended Yacht vacation with Wynand? )

Again a perceptual difference in part, perhaps fully. He was doing it because he wanted it; the challenge of a new design using new materials and methods. It was not that he couldn't abide it not being done right, it was because he realized that there was probably no one else who could meet the cost/design requirements and he saw it as a challenge which was a chance to advance his knowledge and skills.

If you recall from the trial, he did NOT destroy it because it was not done correctly. He destroyed it because his price as contracted was not paid thus the contract was voided and since he had not been paid in accordance with the contract requirements, he did the only thing he could to prevent his work from being stolen; he destroyed what he had built. And if you recall, the structural engineering and design was not altered, only the facades and outer appearance to give it "personality".

And don't forget the other project he was commissioned to design which was designed from the outset to fail, i. e., it was a scam. Roark was chosen because of his reputation as a maverick and the supposition was that his design would make it a market failure, at least he would be a feasible scapegoat because of the maverick reputation. And to the chagrin of the builders, his design was a tremendous market success and they ended up in deep shit because they had not planned for the eventuality success and they were caught short.

Originally posted by XXplorher
... Personally, I don't find that healthy.) And what that means to me is - you can't simply go it alone. As admiring as that may be. And therefore - it's a flaw in her theory.

Don't lose sight of the fact that she was portraying the "ultimate" in her novels, the absolute in focus and direction. They obviously are not real people. And she was NOT proposing that anyone "go it alone". What she offered was that each man should live for his own happiness, i. e., happiness is a proper and noble end and man's life should be lived to that end. It does not exclude others, rather, to be complete and happy to the fullest extent, one's life must involve others. This includes business associations, friends and romantic love.

What she rejected is that the service of others is the purpose and end of a man's life and of a higher importance than his own happiness and well being, i. e., altruism.

In fact, altruism essentially negates one's right to pursue one's own happiness. Rather, your life's only purpose is in altruistic terms is to serve others while their only legitimate pursuit is to serve yours (and everyone else's excluding, of course, their own).

As she explained the perfect mechanism of altruism, it is that to the extent that one practices it, one is prohibited from enjoyment in one's life and to the extent that one achieves happiness and success in life, one violates the moral code they are supposed to embrace. This contradiction produces the guilt which those who advocate altruism use to exact the penance from their victims with whole hearted cooperation of the victims who are trapped by the dichotomy. And because they are inculcated with the doctrine of altruism from their very earliest childhood, it seldom occurs to them to question their moral code. Instead, they have been indoctrinated to feel inadequate, weak, unworthy and immoral for their failure to adequately adhere to their altruistic morality which is in fact the root of their misery.

As John Galt said, "Yes, this is an age of moral crisis ... Your moral code has reached its climax, the blind alley at the end of its course. And if you wish to go on living, what you now need is not to return to morality ... but to discover it."

Originally posted by XXplorher
BINGO! And THIS is where we disagree, in theory. I feel Wynand was stronger than ever in his resolve to originally fight for Roark. He was earning back what he had thrown away on that sidewalk of blood as a teenager. He was exercising an ethical response that showed true character. (Though Roark would rather it never offered - to his credit, it wasn't his place to decide that for Wynand). And for his efforts he lost everything? except his integrity (IMO). That's the way I see it. I realize that isn't what Ayn Rand was saying there, specifically. But I disagree with her on what's truly important (in THIS specific). She seemed to be saying - he lost it all because he let his work get personal. He was sacrificing for another. I wholly disagree with that thinking. Then - he screwed the pooch and wasted all that as well. Obviously - foolish. Why? Integrity is more important than money - always. THAT'S why.
I definitely hold Roark in higher esteem. Because he NEVER tossed off his ethics and integrity, as Wynand did to build his empire to begin with.

We agree that Roark would never have asked for Wynand's support. But he did appreciate it and knowing Wynand, knew it would happen. And if you recall, Wynand didn't offer his support, he told Roark he was going to do it. Roark neither thanked him nor tried to dissuade him because Roark understood that it was Wynand's decision to make. Roark recognized that Wynand had to take up Roark's defense for his (Wynand's) own purpose, i. e., for the sake of his own moral integrity. Likewise, Wynand would not have offered because he would have known that were it an offer, Roark could and would have refused it. There was only one person Roark requested to assist him throughout the book if you recall.

Wynand's support of Roark was not a sacrifice. It was his choice to pursue the values he cherished and respected and wanted to defend, the values epitomized in Roark. But his lack of attention to the paper's management is what cost him, if you recall. Harken back to the conversation with Toohey when Wynand cautioned Toohey not to anger him and Toohey replied, "I shall endeavor not to do so until the appropriate time."

It was that he had put critical functions into the hands of people who despised and opposed his values and allowed them to have key people in the hierarchy under Toohey's influence whom they could use to destroy Wynand's newspaper which was his single greatest love and achievement in life. His inattention was his undoing, not a sacrifice for Roark's sake.

Wynand was pursuing his most deeply held values when he was defending Roark but the control of the paper he had allowed to be eroded by others caused the decline and impending death of his newspaper. His ultimate choice came when he realized he must either condemn Roark and betray all his principles and ethical values or he would lose the paper. He chose to retain the physical entity of the newspaper business and betray his principles and this was the conflict that finally resulted in his end.

He realized after making that choice that he had thrown away everything which he had valued for the basest of purposes, for the exercise of power over the lives of others. So in the end, he did precisely what he had done at the beginning. But at the end, he fully grasped and understood the evil of that choice and made the conscious choice to not live with that choice overshadowing him for the remainder of his life having to face Roark and Dominique. Hence the choice of suicide. It was easier and more desirable to die by his own hand than to face those who would always symbolize his utterly contemptible betrayal of his deepest values even though they would never have reproached him for his choice.

Do you recall the name of his yacht and the source of the name? And to whom he explained the name, the ONLY person to whom he EVER explained it? Also, do you remember when he contracted Roark to build the home for him and Dominique? Particularly, the end of that exchange when Wynand suddenly realizes that Roark was the architect against whom his paper had mounted a vicious baseless attack? Remember what he asked Roark about the attack and Roark's response? And do you remember how angered Wynand was and why?

Originally posted by XXplorher
What do you think she meant by costing Wynand everything for his defense of Roark? If he had stayed true to it and lost it all (financially)- do you think she would be advocating that? Or is she simply saying 'The minute you let consideration for someone else you hold in high esteem alter your direction - is the moment you lose the battle'. Cuz I personally think: The minute you let consideration for yourSELF alter someone ELSE'S direction you hold in high esteem - is the moment you lose the battle.
I know she was mostly saying 'stay true to your convictions' (which I obviously agree with), but what is your personal thinking on the 'consideration' aspect of it?

I think I answered this in the above. If not, let me know and I'll take another stab at it.

Originally posted by XXplorher
Understood. In the context of what I've been saying here then - we disagree less than I percieved.

I have been asked on occasion if I thought Mr. Spock was my image of the perfect persona. In fact, he is not because he completely suppresses emotion and negates its value. I agree with Rand that emotion has a distinct value and purpose but it is not properly the means of cognition. When emotion is given reign over one's rational faculties, then one's chances of success and happiness are considerably diminished.

 

[XXplorher]

I am not using them in the commonly perceived parlance.

Liar (hehehe – I’m kidding).

I suppose I’m entering hypocritical thinking here…. Cuz - I want people to use their own mind. Therefore, I shouldn’t ‘tell’ them what to do. But I AM guilty of that on occasion. And that would put me right in line with your way of thinking: A mention that encourages others to do as you prefer – isn’t necessarily doing the thinking FOR them. Rather – maybe you’re simply introducing it. Or at least the idea.

I’ll concede that argument.

Sadly it may be universally true regarding Libertarian candidates. Since they do not offer to steal from one person for another's benefit, they are virtually assuring their political defeat in today's America.

Ah, I beg to differ.
Entertaining the possibility of defeat into your mindset – is assuring the possibility OF defeat. Standing by ‘your’ determined cause can never be ‘wasted’. Rather, maybe the Libertarian party is waiting for a person of such integrity AND stature that will choose to wear their label, rather than take an easier route to success through one of the more visible, standard lables. (Is there such a person in politics? Goes back to my argument of why one chooses politics to begin with. I don’t see much integrity in politics). In fact, maybe a succession of such persons could eventually lead the Libertarian party to BE a more visible, standard label.

Wouldn’t that be the point of you voting Libertarian to begin with? If you thought your vote was hopeless, and wasted – would you actually use it to vote Libertarian?
(Am I doing ok here? Or has 5 days of parties in 8, still left me considerably dumb?)

And if the Libertarian vote has no chance to win – aren’t I still accurate with using the individual as my criteria, rather than the label. Can a person of supreme integrity be a Republican – and vote individually on topic, rather than party lines? Or would they ALSO be ensuring a losing battle by doing so?

Hence, avoid politics all together!!

I taken exception to the potential for deception by its structure. So very few people know what capitalism really is that they read your statement and presume that the USA is doing capitalism.

Do people of sound mind expect perfection in a system dependant upon SO many individual’s? It’ll NEVER be perfect, anywhere. There will ALWAYS be looters. You do what you can to avoid them. (That said, there’s nothing wrong with fighting for a better engine, I suppose. That’s evolution.)

Perceptual difference, I think; not philosophical. (RE: Roark and Domique – respect)

Yup – a difference in MY perceived philosophy, of what makes a fulfilling relationship. To each his/her own. (I don’t want what they had – as they had it).

he saw it as a challenge which was a chance to advance his knowledge and skills.

Agreed.

He destroyed it because his price as contracted was not paid thus the contract was voided and since he had not been paid in accordance with the contract requirements, he did the only thing he could to prevent his work from being stolen; he destroyed what he had built. And if you recall, the structural engineering and design was not altered, only the facades and outer appearance to give it "personality".

Well he certainly didn’t agree with the ‘personality’ manipulations (hell, he ultimately ended up in the quarries over that same refusal, eh. And I’m sure he’d do so once again on principle). But you’re right – it WAS based on his contract requirements. I had it skewed a bit.

I’m wondering….. a lot of where you’re coming from on this is the strict financial angle. Value for value etc. That’s DEFINITELY central to the issue, particularly since the author was coming from a place of communism to capitalism. I’m sure it’s central to HER interests, declarations, and demands. But I should mention – that isn’t really where *I* took satisfaction from the book so much. I took satisfaction from the strength and integrity of the character to hold steadfast to what they believe in (it doesn’t matter so much what it is they believe in. I simply admire it from a determination standpoint. A refusal to reduce themselves or allow the world to compromise their right to themselves). The fact that she presented the argument in such a clearly accurate, rational mindset, with PLENTY of examples of why she’s right in that stance (and she’s just simply brilliant in her ability to DO that) – made the argument all that easier to swallow, and all that much more satisfying to witness succeed.

Also, I very much appreciated the basic encouragement of ‘ego’ not as something to be vilified, but as a source of inspiration and production – rather than glorifying humility (which can clearly be lazy and counterproductive). THAT’S where I took my admiration and joy of the book from. Cuz I get tabbed as ‘arrogant’ all the time. And I have a hard time understanding why that’s so. I’m merely confident and sure of myself in certain areas. Why would that be a bad thing? To me – ‘arrogance’ is a FALSE sense of pride. My pride isn’t false. I earn it every day – with my integrity. I took satisfaction from Ayn Rand’s certain reasoning of that fact.

One step further: I admire Forrest Gump every bit as much as Howard Roark. Do you know why that is? Take a stab?

So I’m not really on the ‘Ayn Rand monetary principle’ ship (though I certainly don’t disagree with it). I’m more on the ‘Ayn Rand encouragement to retain yourSELF’ ship.

(Ok – that rant was worth saying. Maybe I’m back in the groove now…)

And to the chagrin of the builders, his design was a tremendous market success and they ended up in deep shit because they had not planned for the eventuality success and they were caught short.

No, I remember that. Very, very much a favorite section of mine. You betcha!

What she offered was that each man should live for his own happiness, i. e., happiness is a proper and noble end and man's life should be lived to that end

Weren’t you admonishing emotion as a flaw, earlier? *grin*
My point has been made and agreed upon then, no?

If the point of pursuit IS happiness; and it inCLUDES the company/co-ordination of others – then it’s not a flaw in her theory. (That message is a bit clearer in Atlas Shrugged. Suppose I should have recognized that).

As she explained the perfect mechanism of altruism, it is that to the extent that one practices it, one is prohibited from enjoyment in one's life and to the extent that one achieves happiness and success in life, one violates the moral code they are supposed to embrace. This contradiction produces the guilt which those who advocate altruism use to exact the penance from their victims with whole hearted cooperation of the victims who are trapped by the dichotomy. And because they are inculcated with the doctrine of altruism from their very earliest childhood, it seldom occurs to them to question their moral code. Instead, they have been indoctrinated to feel inadequate, weak, unworthy and immoral for their failure to adequately adhere to their altruistic morality which is in fact the root of their misery.

Once again VERY well said. I don’t disagree. Leaving room for the fact that some very well may get their happiness, and satisfaction, from assisting others. (If they fall into the trap Peter Keating’s original love interest fell into…… Catherine? – then their reasoning for doing so was in fact – flawed).

As John Galt said,

I’ve only just reached (crashed in) Atlantis – I assume I’m going to meet John Galt. (Taking WAY too long to finish the book. Requires my dedicated time and attention).

And if you recall, Wynand didn't offer his support, he told Roark he was going to do it. Roark neither thanked him nor tried to dissuade him because Roark understood that it was Wynand's decision to make.

I thought that’s what I had said. Semantic?

Actually, I don’t recall who Roark ever ‘asked’ for assistance. What was the context? Was it Dominique in the blowing up of the building? Guess that would have to be it. And are you pointing that out becuae it shows his respect for her? Hmm - good point.

You don’t feel Wynand was aware he was sacrificing his paper in Roark’s defense? Or are you saying he was only doing it from a selfish standpoint of his need to regain his integrity? I see that. But personally, I think he recognized that Roark was a better man. And therefore worthy of the sacrifice. That if it cost him the banner to exhibit a man who’s qualities should ERASE what makes the banner successful…. It was worth it. He would stand second fiddle, cuz he KNEW that he was anyway. (Course, he didn’t follow through on that). Then again – to destroy what he despises (the reason the banner’s successful) may also serve his personal purpose….

As far as the Toohey thing was concerned, he simply underestimated his ability – and the extent of his evil.

Do you think that Wynand truly loved his paper? I don’t. I think that he was slapping the world silly with their own slobber cuz that’s what they deserved…… Daring a man like Roark to exist. The fact a man like Roark existed, and as you said epitomized his respect – threw his beliefs into a tailspin and he lost his edge (which was being completely wasted ANYway). Personally, I think he was building the biggest Goliath he could - to FIND David. And when he did, he had become so wrapped up in the slobber of inadequacy, he couldn’t recognize himself. Or – was desperate to re-establish his credibility. Because now there was a reason in the world. He was WRONG that there wasn’t. Only – he fucked up. And lost sight of it…. Again. He’s a mirror on what Roark COULD have been….. had he lost his integrity.
I rambled a bit there. But – I don’t think he loved his paper. He despised that he was able to build his life with it. And worse – couldn’t use it for any benefit when faced with a reason. And therefore despised himself. That’s what I think.

But maybe that’s your point. His lack of focus was the reason for his downfall. Not his sacrifice.

He realized after making that choice that he had thrown away everything which he had valued for the basest of purposes, for the exercise of power over the lives of others.

Yeah. No kidding. Total looooooooooooooooser.

You’ve twice now mentioned Wynand’s suicide. I have to admit - I don’t recall that really. And if I didn’t recognize that, I guess none of my other arguments are any fucking good, are they? Was that clearly said in the book? I’ll have to look again (it’s been a couple years, but you’d think I’d recall something that important. Doh!)

Do you recall the name of his yacht and the source of the name?

I remember that being important. But I also admit… I don’t recall. (Damn!)

when he contracted Roark to build the home for him and Dominique? Particularly, the end of that exchange when Wynand suddenly realizes that Roark was the architect against whom his paper had mounted a vicious baseless attack? Remember what he asked Roark about the attack and Roark's response? And do you remember how angered Wynand was and why?

I believe he had to admit that Dominique and he were lovers? No, that couldn't be right in the timeline. How critical is that specific? Maybe I should read the whole thing over again. ( I certainly THOUGHT I was paying attention).

I agree with Rand that emotion has a distinct value and purpose but it is not properly the means of cognition. When emotion is given reign over one's rational faculties, then one's chances of success and happiness are considerably diminished.

Ok I almost had to disagree with you again and wonder how that happened, but then you clarified it. I agree, if you let emotion take reign OVER your rational faculties – you’re ability to discern is truly diminished. And that makes happiness difficult (unless your just happy to be stupid). But clearly – happiness is the pursuit. And THAT’S an emotion. ‘Joy’ is the reason for all the rest of it. And though I found Roark stale – he certainly had his moments of supreme joy. And you can bet he earned it, senior.

 

[Cheyenne]

And I thought Madam P was windy.

 

[XXplorher]

And I thought Madam P was windy.

Apparently, you're late to the conversation. No worries - there's plenty else here requiring less brain power. I'm a little fried myself even...

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by XXplorher
I suppose I'm entering hypocritical thinking here?. Cuz - I want people to use their own mind. Therefore, I shouldn't 'tell' them what to do. But I AM guilty of that on occasion. And that would put me right in line with your way of thinking: A mention that encourages others to do as you prefer - isn't necessarily doing the thinking FOR them. Rather - maybe you're simply introducing it. Or at least the idea.

Likewise. But if I cannot get them to think objectively for themselves, perhaps offering the idea of freedom will convince or induce them to vote with me to our mutual benefit which is in contrast to the political left. I do not seek to gain something at the expense of others, only to reaffirm my innate rights and freedom.

Originally posted by XXplorher
Ah, I beg to differ.
Entertaining the possibility of defeat into your mindset - is assuring the possibility OF defeat. Standing by 'your' determined cause can never be 'wasted'. Rather, maybe the Libertarian party is waiting for a person of such integrity AND stature that will choose to wear their label, rather than take an easier route to success through one of the more visible, standard lables. (Is there such a person in politics? Goes back to my argument of why one chooses politics to begin with. I don't see much integrity in politics). In fact, maybe a succession of such persons could eventually lead the Libertarian party to BE a more visible, standard label.

Wouldn't that be the point of you voting Libertarian to begin with? If you thought your vote was hopeless, and wasted - would you actually use it to vote Libertarian?

I don't consider my vote for our freedom wasted. It is in support of a very valuable premise and I would be betraying my values to vote otherwise.

Originally posted by XXplorher
And if the Libertarian vote has no chance to win - aren't I still accurate with using the individual as my criteria, rather than the label. Can a person of supreme integrity be a Republican - and vote individually on topic, rather than party lines? Or would they ALSO be ensuring a losing battle by doing so?

To me, supreme integrity means never supporting suppression or oppression of individual rights and freedoms even if it means respecting a man's freedom to choose that which is harmful to him. Thus, strictly speaking, NO, because the Republican platform supports prohibition laws, i. e., drugs, gambling (except government run), prostitution, etc.

Originally posted by XXplorher
Do people of sound mind expect perfection in a system dependant upon SO many individual's? It'll NEVER be perfect, anywhere. There will ALWAYS be looters. You do what you can to avoid them. (That said, there's nothing wrong with fighting for a better engine, I suppose. That's evolution.)

I don't expect a perfect system. But with the present political inclination (particularly the Left) of ever increasing government intervention and control, we (the USA) are much closer to Fascism than to Capitalism. And this reality is hardly dependent on so many; rather, it's dependent on a (relative) few, those in political power who exercise illegitimate political power in the economic arena.

And the part I find most annoying is that every problem directly attributable to political bumbling in economics, free enterprise is given the blame and the few voices that are willing to note the truth are ignored.

Originally posted by XXplorher
Well he certainly didn't agree with the 'personality' manipulations (hell, he ultimately ended up in the quarries over that same refusal, eh. And I'm sure he'd do so once again on principle). But you're right - it WAS based on his contract requirements. I had it skewed a bit.

I'm sure you're right. After all, by dynamiting Cortlandt, Roark risked imprisonment. And working as a day laborer in the quarries was a far easier life for a man like Roark.

Originally posted by XXplorher
I'm wondering?.. a lot of where you're coming from on this is the strict financial angle. Value for value etc. That's DEFINITELY central to the issue, particularly since the author was coming from a place of communism to capitalism. I'm sure it's central to HER interests, declarations, and demands. But I should mention - that isn't really where *I* took satisfaction from the book so much. I took satisfaction from the strength and integrity of the character to hold steadfast to what they believe in (it doesn't matter so much what it is they believe in. I simply admire it from a determination standpoint. A refusal to reduce themselves or allow the world to compromise their right to themselves). The fact that she presented the argument in such a clearly accurate, rational mindset, with PLENTY of examples of why she's right in that stance (and she's just simply brilliant in her ability to DO that) - made the argument all that easier to swallow, and all that much more satisfying to witness succeed.

Value for value is hardly the sole province of financial endeavors. Perhaps the most difficult arena in which to achieve it is in the non-financial arenas. It is that it is more easily quantified and achieved in the financial arena. Also, I'm sure you recall Roark's price for Cortlandt was NOT monetary; rather, the monetary reward went to Keating. Roark's price was having the integrity of his intellectual property, i. e., the architectural design, kept intact. Obviously this was more important to Roark than the money.

Originally posted by XXplorher
One step further: I admire Forrest Gump every bit as much as Howard Roark. Do you know why that is? Take a stab?

Don't know the story so I'm at a loss for comment. I know there was a movie but I didn't see it.

Originally posted by XXplorher
Weren't you admonishing emotion as a flaw, earlier? *grin*
My point has been made and agreed upon then, no?

Only when emotion is substituted for one's cognitive faculty, i. e., given sway over one's intellect. This is the weakness and the overwhelming strength of the political left. Their campaigns are fraught with emotion and anyone who tries to counter them with reason is demagogued as hateful, vicious and mean spirited.

Originally posted by XXplorher
... Leaving room for the fact that some very well may get their happiness, and satisfaction, from assisting others. (If they fall into the trap Peter Keating's original love interest fell into?? Catherine? - then their reasoning for doing so was in fact - flawed).

I don't remember Catherine or anyone prior to Keating's marriage to Dominique. Was she a fiancé that Keating dumped to marry Dominique? Or am I confusing this with the Keating-Dominique-Wynand scene over the dinner?

Interesting perspective. Let me offer a different perspective which I realize it may be controversial (a real departure for my BB persona, no?). For those people who choose this endeavor as their life's work, do they really achieve happiness in their servitude to others? Or are they driven by some nagging perception of their own lack of efficacy in their lives and are salving that pain by perpetually rescuing the less capable, the lazy, the incompetent or inept to produce some relative sense of efficacy in their own lives? (The rationale being essentially, "If I'm helping this many people, then my life must be doing really well".) I see this in much the same sense as I view career politicians garner what passes for self-esteem by their exercise of power over the lives and property of others. This is the counterfeit version of the true self-esteem felt by the men who perform positive, efficacious, productive roles in society, the Roarks, Reardons, Willers & D. Taggerts.

Originally posted by XXplorher
... I've only just reached (crashed in) Atlantis - I assume I'm going to meet John Galt. (Taking WAY too long to finish the book. Requires my dedicated time and attention).

Actually, you already have and when you realize it, that will be a true forehead slapping moment.

Originally posted by XXplorher
I thought that's what I had said. Semantic?

Perhaps it was semantics. The sentence quoted below is where I got the implication that Wynand made an offer, i. e., from the opening phrase. But as a long time Objectivist, I take the statement to mean what the words state and the idea that Roark would have preferred that Wynand's help were never offered is a direct implication that Wynand came to Roark with such an offer. An offer of help implies the potential for Roark to refuse and Wynand did not give Roark the option to refuse.

(Though Roark would rather it never offered - to his credit, it wasn't his place to decide that for Wynand).

Originally posted by XXplorher
Actually, I don't recall who Roark ever 'asked' for assistance. What was the context? Was it Dominique in the blowing up of the building? Guess that would have to be it. And are you pointing that out becuae it shows his respect for her? Hmm - good point.

RIGHT! on both counts.

Originally posted by XXplorher
Do you think that Wynand truly loved his paper? I don't. I think that he was slapping the world silly with their own slobber cuz that's what they deserved?? Daring a man like Roark to exist. The fact a man like Roark existed, and as you said epitomized his respect - threw his beliefs into a tailspin and he lost his edge (which was being completely wasted ANYway). Personally, I think he was building the biggest Goliath he could - to FIND David. And when he did, he had become so wrapped up in the slobber of inadequacy, he couldn't recognize himself. Or - was desperate to re-establish his credibility. Because now there was a reason in the world. He was WRONG that there wasn't. Only - he fucked up. And lost sight of it?. Again. He's a mirror on what Roark COULD have been?.. had he lost his integrity.
I rambled a bit there. But - I don't think he loved his paper. He despised that he was able to build his life with it. And worse - couldn't use it for any benefit when faced with a reason. And therefore despised himself. That's what I think.

But maybe that's your point. His lack of focus was the reason for his downfall. Not his sacrifice.

I'm responding to the next two in reverse order because I think the response to this provides a foundation for the next.

Yes, Wynand LOVED the Banner. It was the symbol that had proven and vindicated his belief that the incorruptible man, i. e., a man who could not be made to surrender (compromise in the political parlance) his values, existed. His multitude of smear campaigns over the life of the Banner had "proven" his belief. He wasn't seeking David, he had proven David did not exist and the Banner was his means of that proof and vindication.

Originally posted by XXplorher
You don't feel Wynand was aware he was sacrificing his paper in Roark's defense? Or are you saying he was only doing it from a selfish standpoint of his need to regain his integrity? I see that. But personally, I think he recognized that Roark was a better man. And therefore worthy of the sacrifice. That if it cost him the banner to exhibit a man who's qualities should ERASE what makes the banner successful?. It was worth it. He would stand second fiddle, cuz he KNEW that he was anyway. (Course, he didn't follow through on that). Then again - to destroy what he despises (the reason the banner's successful) may also serve his personal purpose?.

Roark upset the apple cart for Wynand when he demonstrated that the Banner could not defeat him, merely cause him some temporary inconvenience. When Wynand realized this, he was obliged to support and defend that which he had presumed did not and could not exist, but did.

Wynand was not sacrificing anything when he threw the Banner behind Roark. He realized that the existence of a man like Roark was far more valuable than the Banner. Thus his decision was not a sacrifice; in Ayn Rand's perception, a sacrifice is the exchange of a value for a non-value. Wynand's choice was for the greater value (Roark) over a lesser value (the Banner).

The sacrifice came when he abandoned Roark, the betrayal of Wynand's ultimate value, the incorruptible man. And when faced with the horrible realization that Wynand himself was corruptible in the face of his ultimate hero, he could not and would not live with this betrayal of his most fundamental values.

Originally posted by XXplorher
As far as the Toohey thing was concerned, he simply underestimated his ability - and the extent of his evil.

I presume you mean Toohey's evil and ability and if so, I agree. And the confirmation of Toohey's full awareness was that he essentially told Wynand that he wouldn't anger Wynand until the "appropriate time", i. e., when I know I can win the day.

Originally posted by XXplorher
You've twice now mentioned Wynand's suicide. I have to admit - I don't recall that really. And if I didn't recognize that, I guess none of my other arguments are any fucking good, are they? Was that clearly said in the book? I'll have to look again (it's been a couple years, but you'd think I'd recall something that important. Doh!)

I remember that being important. But I also admit? I don't recall. (Damn!)

In the book it was VERY subtle if specifically addressed. In the movie (Rand wrote the screenplay also) it was explicitly emphasized. From the book, I didn't realize that was Wynand's end either. But having seen the movie, it ties in. Also, if you recall in the book, it is never addressed that Dominique divorces Wynand but she is married to Roark at the end of the book. The guy who takes her on the elevator to the top of the Wynand Building addresses her as Mrs. Roark.

Originally posted by XXplorher
I believe he had to admit that Dominique and he were lovers? No, that couldn't be right in the timeline. How critical is that specific? Maybe I should read the whole thing over again. ( I certainly THOUGHT I was paying attention).

Perhaps you're thinking of the Atlas Shrugged scene involving Reardon, Dagney and Francisco when Dagney tells Reardon that Francisco was her first lover.

After negotiations for Roark to build the house for Wynand are completed, at some point Wynand realized that Roark had been the architect of a building project targeted by a Banner smear campaign.

Wynand confronted Roark, explicitly tells Roark that Wynand stands behind everything the Banner does/did, and challenged Roark as to why he never mentioned it. Roark's reply is something to the effect, "It doesn't matter."

The philosophical implication being that in the struggle between Roark and Wynand (the Banner), Roark had won because, despite the Banner's campaigns against Roark, Wynand came to Roark when he had an important architectural project. The Banner campaigns were unimportant to Roark because he understood the inevitability of Wynand's choice of Roark as an architect. It was annoying, even infuriating, to Wynand for the same reason.

Following a bit of an exchange between the two men in which Wynand again challenges Roark's integrity, it ends with Roark essentially telling Wynand "I won't tell you how to run the Banner and you don't tell me how to build buildings."

Originally posted by XXplorher
Ok I almost had to disagree with you again and wonder how that happened, but then you clarified it. I agree, if you let emotion take reign OVER your rational faculties - you're ability to discern is truly diminished. And that makes happiness difficult (unless your just happy to be stupid). But clearly - happiness is the pursuit. And THAT'S an emotion. 'Joy' is the reason for all the rest of it. And though I found Roark stale - he certainly had his moments of supreme joy. And you can bet he earned it, senior.

BINGO! And I think I've known a few people who fit the highlighted description in your quote above.

 

[LukkyKnight]

remember the Hindenburg! Long live DCL!

Imagine me trying to wrestle a thread back on track. What next?

lilminx, I'd let the tangents go but for one suggestion, which I didn't notice in scanning the previous posts.

Your students don't live in your world, and neither do their parents. They visit it (to varying degrees) by doing assignments, or discussing them, and when they step into your classroom. They then return to their own world(s), where different realities apply. You are not of their world, so you cannot consistenly understand their perspectives - you have to accept that they are different.

Is it offensive? Yes, to some. Not to those who look at it as you did.

If you can accept that you are bound to miss something, the question you really need the answer to, I think, is: How can I craft this (or any) assignment in such a way that those who will be offended by what I don't understand will be able to channel that into useful energy? When you formulate lab experiments the suggestion is not to let your premise be to prove or disprove anything, but rather to observe and report on whatever outcome there is.

So, for instance, you might ask next time that they:

Talk about what ancestry and origins mean to you. This can be a reflection of any aspect of your own background, from your roots in your current neighborhood to a discussion of one or several ancestors, or whatever else this topic brings to mind.

 

[XXplorher]

Likewise. But if I cannot get them to think objectively for themselves, perhaps offering the idea of freedom will convince or induce them to vote with me to our mutual benefit which is in contrast to the political left

I was basically agreeing with you there. Recognizing I try to ‘lead’ as well.

I don't consider my vote for our freedom wasted. It is in support of a very valuable premise and I would be betraying my values to vote otherwise.

Then wouldn’t ‘running’ Libertarian ALSO – not be a waste of your time? Harkoning back to your earlier mention.

And the part I find most annoying is that every problem directly attributable to political bumbling in economics, free enterprise is given the blame and the few voices that are willing to note the truth are ignored.

Do you really think it’s gotten worse, rather than better? I would disagree.

Also, I'm sure you recall Roark's price for Cortlandt was NOT monetary; rather, the monetary reward went to Keating. Roark's price was having the integrity of his intellectual property, i. e., the architectural design, kept intact. Obviously this was more important to Roark than the money.

So we’re in agreement then?
It’s not about the financial aspect so much. As it is about a person’s right to themselves and their intellectual property.
(And the satisfaction of the book being: witnessing the accomplishment of a man up against it all – and winning. WithOUT concession.)

Don't know the story so I'm at a loss for comment. I know there was a movie but I didn't see it.

That’s a shame. I would HIGHLY recommend it. It was instrumental in my life. Completely altered my self-perception. Many people completely misunderstood the premise of the movie. Completely misunderstood the character. And what he stands for. If you cannot respect Forrest Gump…. you’re not very honest with yourself.
I’d be interested in your reactions to that movie. He’s Howard Roark from a very different angle. Rent it NOW!

Only when emotion is substituted for one's cognitive faculty, i. e., given sway over one's intellect.

Actually. You originally stated as the want for emotional satisfaction from an act – as a flaw. Should I go back and find it?

I don't remember Catherine or anyone prior to Keating's marriage to Dominique. Was she a fiancé that Keating dumped to marry Dominique? Or am I confusing this with the Keating-Dominique-Wynand scene over the dinner?

Very early in the book (I believe her name was Catherine) and continuing through the 1st third. She is Elsworth Toohey’s neice. She’s completely devoted to Keating (and blindly so). She’s devoted to ‘assistance for others’. And it ends up making her very bitter. THAT’S why her intentions were flawed. She wasn’t ‘assisting’ because that’s what she wanted. She was assisting because she expected that to be righteous. And because she wanted it to be recognized (though she never admitted that).

An admittance here to myself, and you – I take a lot of joy, and pride actually, in assisting others. I do it cuz I HAVE to. It’s not really a thought process. I HAVE to do it if it’s in front of me. Not because someone else said I should – I just HAVE to do it. For me. BUT – I do get bitter at the lack of awareness from others of what it costs me. And a major source of the inspiration to do so – is acknowledgement it was effective, and worth doing (which I VERY rarely receive). That’s a flaw in my department. That means it isn’t totally pure a motive on my part. However, I’m not doing it for someone else’s credo. I do it for myself. It’s what I believe in. Which means: I’m not a ‘looter’ (looking for a thumb over someone), or doing it due to societies expectations of humility. It’s MY pursuit. I do it for myself. To support belief in my OWN credo. And actually, as time has gone on, the less I’ve expected for my efforts, and the more determination I have in not allowing myself to break in this pursuit. Probably, because I recognize that it isn’t for ‘them’. It’s for me. I’m simply imperfect - in my need for outside validation. And I don’t mind being imperfect.

I realize that’s a bit off subject, but I thought it might be important to note – lest I appear hypocritical. (And, obviously, this has a lot to do with why I admire Roark to such an extent. He doesn’t care about the validation from others. VERY impressive).

do they really achieve happiness in their servitude to others? Or are they driven by some nagging perception of their own lack of efficacy in their lives and are salving that pain by perpetually rescuing the less capable, the lazy, the incompetent or inept to produce some relative sense of efficacy in their own lives?

Well looky there – (I replied before reading this paragraph).

In some cases – no. See above. I want to make a difference. I want it to matter that I was here. I want a domino effect of thought process to take place because of me. I want to know that I could cause that. I want to know that I could enable that. Was Ayn Rand simply interested in herself? Or did she want to affect change – for the betterment of others? She affected me. I saw Forrest Gump and it altered my direction for the better. It showed me something I hadn’t considered. That could improve my life. There are other things I have read, seen, heard – that also altered my mindset and improved my life (by way of mental capacity and clarity).
I want to have this same effect. And I’ve chosen ‘the arts’ as my channel of effect.

Do I do it because I ‘owe’ it to someone? Or because I feel worthless otherwise? I do it because I owe it to mySELF. Because I KNOW I’m that valuable. And I don’t want to waste it. That would be criminal. AND – I DO owe those in kind who’ve come before me, the strength and determination to succeed. As they did for me. For example: I owe it to Ayn Rand.

Would that make me counterfeit? Hardly.

Actually, you already have and when you realize it, that will be a true forehead slapping moment.

Assuming I don’t already see things clearly (I expect what’s coming). *grin*
I dabbled into a few pages of Atlantis yesterday. Very satisfying to see hers. However, I’m a bit concerned she’s (Ayn) going to offer a ‘heaven’ as the purpose to pursue. I expect no heaven. I only expect to be effective. That’s my heaven – WHILE I’m watching it. (Reardon and Dagny simply need to pass of the bloodsuckers as a means for them to be effective. Something to measure their efforts by).
Anyway, I only read a few pages. Let’s not comment on this section of the book.

I take the statement to mean what the words state and the idea that Roark would have preferred that Wynand's help were never offered is a direct implication that Wynand came to Roark with such an offer. An offer of help implies the potential for Roark to refuse and Wynand did not give Roark the option to refuse

I’m pretty sure I prefaced Wynand’s actions to show that isn’t what he did. I’m not going to search for it in this mess though, eh. It’s not important.

RIGHT! on both counts. (Dominique, respect, and Cortland)

Gotcha. Good point.

Yes, Wynand LOVED the Banner. It was the symbol that had proven and vindicated his belief that the incorruptible man, i. e., a man who could not be made to surrender (compromise in the political parlance) his values, existed. His multitude of smear campaigns over the life of the Banner had "proven" his belief. He wasn't seeking David, he had proven David did not exist and the Banner was his means of that proof and vindication.

I’m confused.

If you mean he loved it because it unveiled Roark – then he would not have loved it UNTIL then (at which point it becomes a useless entity). And an unlovable object prior to Roark.

If you mean he loved it because it proved to him no such man as Roark existed (until he appeared). Then I have a hard time understanding how Roark could respect Wynand. For a man to take satisfaction, and love, from proof of complete inadequacy. And therefore derive ‘he is singularly fantastical’…… is a contemptible man. One I certainly would never respect. (The kind of guy that likes to see the other team lose – rather than his own claim victory. No comprende this concept).

Roark upset the apple cart for Wynand when he demonstrated that the Banner could not defeat him, merely cause him some temporary inconvenience. When Wynand realized this, he was obliged to support and defend that which he had presumed did not and could not exist, but did.

Wynand was not sacrificing anything when he threw the Banner behind Roark. He realized that the existence of a man like Roark was far more valuable than the Banner. Thus his decision was not a sacrifice; in Ayn Rand's perception, a sacrifice is the exchange of a value for a non-value. Wynand's choice was for the greater value (Roark) over a lesser value (the Banner).

Completely agree. Line by line.

The sacrifice came when he abandoned Roark, the betrayal of Wynand's ultimate value, the incorruptible man. And when faced with the horrible realization that Wynand himself was corruptible in the face of his ultimate hero, he could not and would not live with this betrayal of his most fundamental values.

That’s a sacrifice? Not in my book, senior. That ain’t how I term it. That’s called weakness - not sacrifice.

In the book it was VERY subtle if specifically addressed. In the movie (Rand wrote the screenplay also) it was explicitly emphasized.

That’s true – she DID write the screenplay and it was very evident in the movie. However, Hollywood demands many alterations of one’s intended vision. She also never again did a movie. I understand she was quite disenchanted with the project (I thought the movie totally sucked, btw. And I plan to do a screenplay borrowing some from Rand’s idea – with my own spin, eh). I read the end again – and it isn’t directly said. Though possibly inferred. She didn’t say it. So I don’t assume it.

if you recall in the book, it is never addressed that Dominique divorces Wynand but she is married to Roark at the end of the book. The guy who takes her on the elevator to the top of the Wynand Building addresses her as Mrs. Roark.

Now THAT’S a real good point!! I recognized the Mrs. But I did not factor the non divorce into it. Figured we were expect that based on the time passed. But that’s a REAL good point. Hmm……. (certainly alters my perception of Wynand’s ‘character’, eh).

BINGO! And I think I've known a few people who fit the highlighted description in your quote above.

Plenty. And, of course, that’s their prerogative, eh. (oh well).

 

[XXplorher]

Re: remember the Hindenburg! Long live DCL!

Long live DCL!

How did Peter Keating enter the argument?

How can I craft this (or any) assignment in such a way that those who will be offended by what I don't understand will be able to channel that into useful energy? [/B]

What – is she trying to win the Nobel Prize?
All this expected politically correct bullshit in this country is just that – bullshit. She was trying to educate. Help them to think for themselves. Sue her for it, eh.

 

[LukkyKnight]

it's not about politically correct nonsense

It's about respecting the diversity of the students and their families. A simple asssignment to "bring in an egg for a science project" may force a student from a family which cannot afford to go buy a dozen eggs today to skip a day of school of face embarassment for showing up without the materials. I am not anywhere close to a litiginous approach, merely replying in response to a genuine question from a perspective which suggests there is more to it than usually meets the eye(s). I make such blunders all too routinely myself. It is a daunting prospect to be a teacher, but as the original question suggests they work to improve themselves and to reach more students constantly - and in that spirit I suggest taking a meta-view.

If you see people constantly floating by in the river, drowning, you can haul them out until you're exhausted. Or you can go upstream and find out how they keep getting in there in the first place.

 

[lilminx]

Re: remember the Hindenburg! Long live DCL!

lilminx, I'd let the tangents go but for one suggestion, which I didn't notice in scanning the previous posts.

Your students don't live in your world, and neither do their parents. They visit it (to varying degrees) by doing assignments, or discussing them, and when they step into your classroom. They then return to their own world(s), where different realities apply. You are not of their world, so you cannot consistenly understand their perspectives - you have to accept that they are different.

Is it offensive? Yes, to some. Not to those who look at it as you did.

If you can accept that you are bound to miss something, the question you really need the answer to, I think, is: How can I craft this (or any) assignment in such a way that those who will be offended by what I don't understand will be able to channel that into useful energy? When you formulate lab experiments the suggestion is not to let your premise be to prove or disprove anything, but rather to observe and report on whatever outcome there is.

So, for instance, you might ask next time that they:

Talk about what ancestry and origins mean to you. This can be a reflection of any aspect of your own background, from your roots in your current neighborhood to a discussion of one or several ancestors, or whatever else this topic brings to mind.

Lukkynight- first of all, these are FIRST GRADERS we're talking about- this isn't for a friggin' college thesis. Secondly, many of my kids' parents wouldn't understand that assignment you suggested, much less the students. I tried to make the assignment as simple as possible- we were doing a theme on families, and to simply ask where their family was from was an extension of what they had been doing in class. A couple of children wrote that they were from Virginia or another state- that was fine- they answered the question. A couple of parents took offense by it because they were looking for things to find offensive...
As for your comment about these kids visiting my world...they don't "visit my world"- I live in the same world as they do. SCHOOL is part of their world- they spend 7 hours a day there. You're right that their life may be different when they get home, but that does not mean that their parents should get their back up over anything that has to do with heritage.

Excuse me if this sounds cranky, but it has been a really crappy, stressful, frustrating week at work, and when I actually checked this thread for the first time in days, I get criticism. I think that, not living in the city, and not dealing with the different types of children as I do, you really have no idea what I do every day. You have no clue what htese kids and their parents are like, and no clue how much I try to help them and take into consideration their cultural and socio-economic differences. Fine- I'm white, but that doesn't mean that I'm a stranger to or ignorant about minorities who don't have much money.

 

[LukkyKnight]

well, yes technically it's criticism

...but criticism has taken on a negative connotation in recent usage. Do with the feedback what you will, I intended only to offer another way of looking at it. Never tried to teach at that level, and I admire those who can and do.

Pretty clear my message isn't being gotten at the receiving end(s) in the same way I am trying to mold it as the sender. Carry on, I meant no offense, only to offer a different approach for a subsequent exercise. I liked what you set forth, frankly, but I do get bitten by similar "criticism" myself.

A thousand pardons.