Some Questions

zI am not an expert in Objectivism in particular or Ayn Rand's writings in general, so any error or misstatement on my part is mine alone. But I do welcome criticism from any knowledgeable quarter. I may also be guilty of 'cherry-picking' what I choose to comment on {rather than commenting on the whole} due to time constraints.

Assteroid30 » Mon Dec 2 2013 ... yes I do agree we have to be selfish in order to full our motives but Roark’s obsession with his integrity led him to destroy that building. I disagree here. Doesn't he know that the people who built it, the construction workers, like him in the quarry, were working collectively.

I never thought for a single moment that I ever worked 'collectively'. Yes, I've had to work with others and it may have been for a common goal but come appraisal time it was my value to the organization and mine alone being assessed. Upon receiving a negative evaluation I would never have said, 'But 'WE' did a great job'. You could bring unions into the mix but that's an entirely different discussion.

All of the artistic mind, individualism and eccentricity is taken to extremes here.

I don't agree with the use of the word 'extreme'. I think what Rand is doing is applying or bringing consistency to the character of Roark.

Ayn Rand doesn't have an artistic mind. She would be kicked out of any band, especially Improvise Jazz sessions which has some of the greatest music ever produced because of their awesome communion.

I do not know what Ayn Rand thought of Jazz in particular but I get the impression from critics that they think Ayn Rand was against it because it is a group performance that counts in the end. I say a member of a music group can be a selfish individual. How many Rock groups have you heard of that fought like cats & dogs yet turned out a great product. They fight because they each have a different vision but never lose sight of the ultimate goal. If the disputes cannot be reconciled it is right that they split up {I'm sure you know of examples}.

Let me see if I can give you a different example. Suppose we are watching a game of basketball and a 2 on 1 situation evolves {x and y against defender z}. x and y are passing it back and forth as they race toward their basket. x who is the better shot gets the ball but rather than take the shot passes it to y who shoots. Was x a selfish individual? If x kept in mind the ultimate goal of the game and made the decision y was in a better position then yes he is a selfish individual.

She is a philosopher of her Objectives principle but it is all deficient due to unrealistic alignment. It is aligned in her world and doesn't apply to this one.

In the case of the Fountainhead the only price he asked was that they build it as he designed it. Peter could have said NO. So what we learn is that contracts are meaningless in a collective world.

I just have so many things I talk against her. Especially altruism, that helping others or working for free just outright makes us a slave.

Ayn Rand had no problem with someone lending a helping hand to someone who through no fault of their own needs assistance. What we have now is Government compelling its people to work 5 months out of the year to feed its spending habits {because we do not have a balanced budget it should be much greater}. What WE the people are not allowed to ask is who is it going to and how much. I view it as a clear form of slavery. It may not be with whips and chains but there's a gun pointed in your direction {I think it’s called the IRS}.

America help others, because next day when someone blows up your place like Roark did, you can expect others to help you, and people like us have faith that I could a day without food knowing that if I gave my meal to someone else, I'd have the faith that someone would be there for me.

When you speak of giving voluntary assistance you are right. No country's citizens do more than those in the United States. But in these instances we control the 'to who and how much'.

If you've seen the movie "Witness" you'll remember the barn raising segment. What occurs is the Amish community bands together to build a barn {possibly to replace one destroyed}. As much as people say to me that it shows the selfless nature of the Amish, I say hogwash. There motives are selfish. They do it for the same reason you stated. That if their barn were destroyed they would hope they would have their neighbor's help and support. If they were required to give up 2 or 3 days a week especially during growing season you'd see them run for the hills.
And what about people who live in modern cities? I can look up and down my street and bet more than half don't know how to use a hammer. What do we do? We give money. And last but not least: What has taken the place of the need for barn raising ceremonies in the inner cities? It’s called INSURANCE. We have become so productive that we no longer have to give up our time and labor. We can take that money and buy insurance. And if we never file a claim it would be the same as never needing the assistance of our neighbors to build a barn.

SELFISHNESS!


'Three can keep a secret ... if two are dead'

reply share

add reply

formatting help