Questions about motivation, The Fountainhead

[Rose Lake 0]

Also, was anyone else suprised when he was aquitted? His defence speech was moving, but I still didn't see an aquittal coming. I def don't think that would happen in real life.

I discussed this topic over last weekend with a long-time Objectivist, wanting to get her opinion. I don't recall being particularly surprised about the acquittal myself; but I think that on my first reading, that was simply because I had no idea about how the sequence of events would progress, and simply watched them unfold.

I asked her about her reaction to the acquittal, and she said she'd had a similar reaction to yours. But after reading the book again, she noticed how carefully the jury selection process was described, as well as the people on it. She thinks that Roark was acquitted because the prosecutor was shown to make an error in his judgment of the men selected for the jury, and that Roark approved them because he thought he might have a chance with such men.

I can't get more specific than that, and this is from my memory of our conversation, which may not be exact. I don't recall that part of the story myself. But I thought this might interest you, since you and she shared a similar reaction to that part of the story on a first reading.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

But after reading the book again, she noticed how carefully the jury selection process was described, as well as the people on it. She thinks that Roark was acquitted because the prosecutor was shown to make an error in his judgment of the men selected for the jury, and that Roark approved them because he thought he might have a chance with such men.

The jury is described thusly:

Twelve men sat in the jury box. They listened, their faces attentive and emotionless. People had whispered that it was a tough-looking jury. There were two executives of industrial concerns, two engineers, a mathematician, a truck driver, a bricklayer, an electrician, a gardener and three factory workers. The impaneling of the jury had taken some time. Roark had challenged many talesmen. He had picked these twelve. The prosecutor had agreed, telling himself that this was what happened when an amateur undertook to handle his own defense; a lawyer would have chosen the gentlest types, those most likely to respond to an appeal for mercy; Roark had chosen the hardest faces.

[TexasTeacherMom 0]

Also, was anyone else suprised when he was aquitted? His defence speech was moving, but I still didn't see an aquittal coming. I def don't think that would happen in real life.

I discussed this topic over last weekend with a long-time Objectivist, wanting to get her opinion. I don't recall being particularly surprised about the acquittal myself; but I think that on my first reading, that was simply because I had no idea about how the sequence of events would progress, and simply watched them unfold.

I asked her about her reaction to the acquittal, and she said she'd had a similar reaction to yours. But after reading the book again, she noticed how carefully the jury selection process was described, as well as the people on it. She thinks that Roark was acquitted because the prosecutor was shown to make an error in his judgment of the men selected for the jury, and that Roark approved them because he thought he might have a chance with such men.

I can't get more specific than that, and this is from my memory of our conversation, which may not be exact. I don't recall that part of the story myself. But I thought this might interest you, since you and she shared a similar reaction to that part of the story on a first reading.

Thanks, and interesting. I am going to look at that more closely. I need to read both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead again but I'm reading Ayn Rand's journals right now.

[TexasTeacherMom 0]

But after reading the book again, she noticed how carefully the jury selection process was described, as well as the people on it. She thinks that Roark was acquitted because the prosecutor was shown to make an error in his judgment of the men selected for the jury, and that Roark approved them because he thought he might have a chance with such men.

The jury is described thusly:

Twelve men sat in the jury box. They listened, their faces attentive and emotionless. People had whispered that it was a tough-looking jury. There were two executives of industrial concerns, two engineers, a mathematician, a truck driver, a bricklayer, an electrician, a gardener and three factory workers. The impaneling of the jury had taken some time. Roark had challenged many talesmen. He had picked these twelve. The prosecutor had agreed, telling himself that this was what happened when an amateur undertook to handle his own defense; a lawyer would have chosen the gentlest types, those most likely to respond to an appeal for mercy; Roark had chosen the hardest faces.

Thanks for this. I had remembered reading this, but not understanding the importance of it at the time I did not pay attention to the subtext.

[Eknath Ende 0]

The few "educated" people in real life that I have talked to about these two novels have balked when I tried to discuss them. It seems they've been indoctrinated to the idea that Objectivism is some horrible elitist "nazi-like" cult. I can really see the influence of altruism in our educational system from elementary level on up to the univeristy. How can they hate her so much when all she does is claim for people their innate right to personal happiness. The fact that she is ignored by all of academia this way has made the whole system abhorrent to me.

I am also really scared about what the future holds for this country. I fear dark days ahead. I am so glad that I have found a handle on something so I won't get swallowed by the madness.

Following is a part of my answer to the horrible phenomenon you have stated above: Of being pronounced as evil without hearing or proper consideration by so-called "educated" people you describe -- being part of a bigger work, 1 or 2 points in between may be a bit difficult to understand, but major part is clear.

Is Ayn Rand’s philosophy of selfishness and egoism beneficial or harmful to society?

The above question struck me most eloquently recently when a graduating student asked me if he could declare himself to be an Ayn Rand Follower in a job interview, the accompanying difficulty being that the words ego, selfishness etc were so much maligned and so much evoked the picture of a child-killer that, “How could you utter such words in a respectable place amongst gentlemen?”

One always encounters the above response, accompanied by shocks and sneers, whenever one utters Ayn Rand’s name in a discussion of “middle-class” educated white collared people of gentle nature who shun taking “extreme” positions in social issues. (Usually the issue is good versus bad, moral versus immoral and right versus wrong, but expressed tangentially as selfishness versus self-sacrifice, egoism versus non-egoism etc). The response is usually accompanied with a host of non-verbal signals like raised eye-brows and wide-eyed disbelief, with the tone of the opponents signaling automatic repudiation of the one who rakes up Ayn Rand’s name, requiring no further argument on the topic. On consulting an experienced interviewer, this student was told that the above argument accompanied by shocks and sneers is a standard practice amongst HR managers to defeat smarties like him (so be prepared to answer if you want to rake up the topic of Ayn Rand’s philosophy). Another school-student was given the topic for discussion: “Wanting to be successful in life is not being Selfish” – the contradiction implied in the above topic is obviously because of popular perception about the word selfishness.

The reason for such popular misconceptions is last 4 – 5000 years’ history of crushing of ego under the name of religion, because of which the word “ego” raises the image of the brute. Most social units like family, corporations, trade and professional bodies function like sports teams where co-operation, adjustment, compromise and “team-spirit” are the key words that bind the team with no one being allowed to take up “extreme” positions that end into ego-problems, no one being allowed to take position of extreme selfishness, but expected to show concern for all other members, and so on.

All along human history it is this one word Ego that has been looked upon as evil, and far from claiming its practice, the person giving a hint of being so is already condemned in advance by the weight of culture, is thrown out of any group, of any “team”, and of society itself – he is an out-caste in advance. In more irrational societies (i.e. the ones closer to TIS described earlier) the proponent of Ayn Rand’s philosophy usually experiences huge injustice and persecution at the hands of those in power, the latter supported by entire society in the exercise, and consequently suffers huge loss.

The issue about egoism versus non-egoism is not about Objectivism – it is about exhibiting individuality, challenging authority, going against the majority etc. It involves the issue whether man has the right to challenge traditionally established authority or no. Objectivism is the latest consistent application of reason, and therefore today the attack is made via that philosophy (and the speed with which emotional disapproval of egoism is shown, is an indication of the hatred of the concerned mentalities of Aristotelianism.)

The immediate answer to the above question is: “Why not? What is the doubt?” Ayn Rand’s (and basic to that Aristotle’s) is the only philosophy that is appropriate to all human concerns, whether individual or in “teams” (i.e. entire society or any of its sub-groups starting from the individual). And you sir, by raising the above question with accompanied emotions, have given me a complete view of your mind, and of your bad intentions within “the team”. Let me explain how –

Let me start my answer by giving you an example of a practitioner of rational selfishness – whom, but if not its best proponent, Ayn Rand herself. Till she struck gold with her fantastic philosophy (which happened beyond 40 years of age), she had to work in “teams”, work under others, take orders and perform certain tasks, in short, deal with others in society, the way all of us do. All the while she was struggling, which means she was closer to poverty than other-wise, or at least not moneyed, even if not poor. In her in between years, mostly teens under the communist thugs, she was also starving. There were never any reports of her having murdered any body, assaulted, attacked, embezzled, or defrauded other members of society to satisfy her “selfishness” (if that is what you mean by your sneers and shocks)! Her characters worked in different situations, as employers or employees, as leaders, lowest paid workers or any position in between – and it is the same with them. In fact, if you read correctly (i.e not through eyes jaundiced by millenniums old culture of hating the good and successful), these are the most sincere, honest, hard-working members of society that have contributed the maximum positives – society has benefited more from them than other people, and also more from these men as compared to their returns. They never indulged in any crimes if that is what you mean by selfishness!

We can consider another example – this time of a “large team”, a large country generally working on principles of egoism – the US of A. This is not as straight-forward an example as that of an individual. Ayn Rand loudly announced to the world (and in a glorious, heroic manner) that she was an egoist working for her “selfish” interests. The case with USA is a bit different – its constitution has granted its citizens the “right to life” as an inalienable right – but has not as gloriously as Ayn Rand, declared selfishness and egoism as its official philosophy. It is only implicitly that its better citizens practice egoism and selfishness. In fact, as far as explicit claiming is concerned, a vast majority of its subjects still believe, from two different angles of religion and socialism (no matter what misguiding titles like conservatives, liberals, labor etc they adopt), that altruism and self-sacrifice are the purpose of human life – one can see it in businessmen’s massive billion dollar “charities”, or politicians’ throwing of alms within and out of US. Yet to whatever extent rational selfishness and egoism is implicitly practiced on earth, it is practiced the maximum in the US – their show about charities not-with-standing. (As explained previously, it is possible for a man, and even an entire society, to claim some thing explicitly but behave in its opposite manner – in this instance, entire USA behaving implicitly selfishly, not defending it explicitly but rather glorifying charity publicly.) You can also know this from the fact of all the “moral and spiritual” leaders of remaining countries condemning it as “Satan’s land” exclusively because of this reason that they are “selfish egoists”. But surprisingly to the rest of the undeveloped world, this selfishness and egoism, rather than making it a dangerous society (if that is what those sneers and shocks are meant to convey), has made it the safest place on earth – safer by a wide margin than anywhere else. One can know that it is either the case of “hatred of the good for being the good”, or of “the grapes are sour”, from what the people of other countries are ready to do, and how much they are ready to pay, to migrate to “Satan’s land”, as detailed ahead. As against the “Satan’s land”, the places where they talk the most of unselfishness and non-egoism – and impose these “pious” tenets on society -- are the ones full of exploitation, suppression, poverty, disease, illiteracy, injustice and all the other vices, malaises and human evils one can think of – which is why the inmates want to escape them at any cost.

Now for some further elaboration (to throw light on the above): Every “team” (whether sports, management, any other association, or the mother of all “teams” viz. entire society) is formed on the basis of Rules that bind the individuals into the team, rules that determine their roles and their contribution in achieving the purpose of forming the team. The rules also include setting the hierarchy determining who will act as leaders and who will follow or carry out the orders in any given circumstance. Finally, if money is involved, the rules determine who will contribute how much to the common pool, and who will take how much out of the returns. Same goes with fame, reputation, appreciation etc as payment. All these rules governing all such “teams” and associations of men are derived out of the Mother of all Rules, Aristotle’s fundamental rule of Reason, A is A. Even the US constitution, an example of Rules binding a large “team”, is derived out of this mother of all rules, viz A is A. In applying these rules, and individuals’ interpretations and expectations, conflicts arise, new situations and complications hitherto not thought of evolve, etc – but everything has to be resolved based on that same Mother of all Rules, including framing of new rules. If some members are being irrational and demanding much more than their contribution (and if that is your concern about “selfishness”), then there are enough members around, and rules guiding everybody’s behavior, to restrain them, and throw them out of the “team” in the ultimate. Talking about “Selfishness” – If the best members of the team are not selfish enough to perform to the best of their ability and aspire for the highest rewards, if they do not compete tooth and nail to achieve the best for themselves, the team’s performance would be stagnating at the level of being boring and uninspiring. That is how all the big teams, entire societies, stagnated all over the earth for thousands of years. If society (the mother of all teams) did not allow members of smaller teams (sports team, management team etc) to change teams for better “selfish” returns, there would be no incentive to excel, but only to stagnate at the level of the lowest performer. It is by observing and correctly applying the mother of all rules, and by being selfish that the best members of human race have raised the level of entire race, are the roots of all of man-kind’s glorious achievements.

(This is the reason why Ayn Rand, her characters, US of A etc are “safest” despite being most “selfish” on earth – that they are also the best proponents / practitioners of the Mother of All Rules. For Ayn Rand, her characters, her followers – and a large number of ASPs after the ASP Revolution – honesty and non-aggression are prime virtues (amongst others like hard-work, self-help, rational usage of ego)).

As far as stability of society and safety in it is concerned, the question whether a man is selfish or unselfish becomes secondary to the question whether he follows all the rules of behavior derived from the mother of all rules. Because the rulers of back-ward societies do not want to follow the rules of rationality derived from A is A, therefore they convert the issue to that of selfishness and non-egoism, so that they can impose unselfishness and non-egoism on their victims, and get away with any kind of irrational behavior. The mild, gentle-manly intellectuals help them in achieving this. As far as achievement and man-kind’s progress is concerned men have to be selfish as well as follow the rules of behavior derived out of the mother of all rules (i.e. they have to be rationally selfish). Anybody who goes against this requirement and preaches man-kind to be unselfish, criticizes rational selfishness, has evil in his mind!

The above is a partial description of the greatness of rational selfishness and egoism – more about it will come ahead when we see details of “The 2 faces of the ASP Revolution – Selfishness and Unselfishness”. Prior to seeing that, we will study some examples of societies based on the tenets of non-egoism as part of applying the Reductio Ad Absurdum method to ethical theories.

Study of Societies based on the Practice of Unselfishness and Non-Egoism (Religion, Socialism and the United Nations):