TTI is known for its intellectuals. This is a place for thinkers to gather and exchange quotes, thoughts, or other topics that might not appeal to the average gamer.
Pyr Oura wrote:If all was truly lost in Roark's world the jury would have convicted him instead. They didn't - they set him free.
It would have been satisfying to see Roark fight to outmaneuver, and defeat his enemies then win back his building... somehow. Not as thought provoking though.
I think you are missing a point here.
If Roark tried to take a legal course of actions without blowing anything up, he would NOT succeed. The only way he could win was by blowing it up and THEN go to court. The entire plot is set up this way.
Ex-CEO of Taggart Transdimensional
"Objectivism is not only true, it is great! Why? Because of the volitional work a mind must have performed to reach for the first time so exalted a level of truth—and because of all the glorious effects such knowledge will have on man’s life, all the possibilities of action it opens up for the future." -- Leonard Peikoff
No, Roark didn't know, but Rand did. She knew there was still hope in that jury. Why didn't she make Roark try harder? That's a rhetorical question - I wanted Roark to try harder. The Fountainhead is Rand's story. But it doesn't stop me from not wanting Roark to blowup his building - his reasoning wasn't enough for me. The story had to go on longer before I felt he had the right to blow up his building.
Pyr Oura wrote:No, Roark didn't know, but Rand did. She knew there was still hope in that jury. Why didn't she make Roark try harder? That's a rhetorical question - I wanted Roark to try harder. The Fountainhead is Rand's story. But it doesn't stop me from not wanting Roark to blowup his building - his reasoning wasn't enough for me. The story had to go on longer before I felt he had the right to blow up his building.
Heh?
What does it matter what Rand knew?
In fact, you are missing the book details. Roark said so himself that he thought he had a chance after blowing up the building and that he didn't have a chance if he choose a legal path instead of a bomb.
Ex-CEO of Taggart Transdimensional
"Objectivism is not only true, it is great! Why? Because of the volitional work a mind must have performed to reach for the first time so exalted a level of truth—and because of all the glorious effects such knowledge will have on man’s life, all the possibilities of action it opens up for the future." -- Leonard Peikoff
Roark said so himself that he thought he had a chance after blowing up the building and that he didn't have a chance if he choose a legal path instead of a bomb.
Roark was wrong to have thought that. If he had a similar jury to the one that set him free, I would say he had a good chance of winning.
Roark said so himself that he thought he had a chance after blowing up the building and that he didn't have a chance if he choose a legal path instead of a bomb.
Roark was wrong to have thought that. If he had a similar jury to the one that set him free, I would say he had a good chance of winning.
Alright, I got an idea that you were saying that Roark did something immoral.
But now you are saying that Roark made an incorrect judgment of facts.
Did you mean that Roark do an error of evasion or an error of knowledge?
Ex-CEO of Taggart Transdimensional
"Objectivism is not only true, it is great! Why? Because of the volitional work a mind must have performed to reach for the first time so exalted a level of truth—and because of all the glorious effects such knowledge will have on man’s life, all the possibilities of action it opens up for the future." -- Leonard Peikoff
Petyr Baelich wrote:All irrelevant. It was Roark's building to do with as he pleased. He had every right to do whatever the hell he wanted with his building.
In the context of The Fountainhead, that's true.
Just be careful not to promote Anarchism if you assume any context.
Ex-CEO of Taggart Transdimensional
"Objectivism is not only true, it is great! Why? Because of the volitional work a mind must have performed to reach for the first time so exalted a level of truth—and because of all the glorious effects such knowledge will have on man’s life, all the possibilities of action it opens up for the future." -- Leonard Peikoff
Roark's error was definitely not evasion - he's logical. His assumption that legal recourse would fail was faulty. So error of knowledge is perhaps closer, but lack of knowledge is probably more accurate. But that doesn't make Roark immoral.
Petyr - you must admit that if Roark took his case to court, proved the breach of contract in a complicated trial then triumphs (it's possible in Fountainhead), getting not only his building back but sending his enemies to jail - is something that would have made you gone yeah!
Pyr Oura wrote:Roark's error was definitely not evasion - he's logical. His assumption that legal recourse would fail was faulty. So error of knowledge is perhaps closer, but lack of knowledge is probably more accurate. But that doesn't make Roark immoral.
Petyr - you must admit that if Roark took his case to court, proved the breach of contract in a complicated trial then triumphs (it's possible in Fountainhead), getting not only his building back but sending his enemies to jail - is something that would have made you gone yeah!
I must disagree with your evaluation here. Why do you think the trial could work?
Also, then you have to follow this to its logical conclusion: so Ayn Rand created an environment where the trial approach could work for Roark with his building and yet she made him make an error of knowledge, so that he blows it up anyway? That's a rather lame plot line, and does not follow at all from all that I have read about Ayn Rand statements on plot and fiction writing.
I can't quote where I have read that Ayn Rand herself wrote that the explosion was the only solution, because I don't recall where I read it, but I do recall her stating it somewhere.
Ex-CEO of Taggart Transdimensional
"Objectivism is not only true, it is great! Why? Because of the volitional work a mind must have performed to reach for the first time so exalted a level of truth—and because of all the glorious effects such knowledge will have on man’s life, all the possibilities of action it opens up for the future." -- Leonard Peikoff
I must disagree with your evaluation here. Why do you think the trial could work?
If the trial doesn't work out, he blows up his building. Actually, that's an excellent ending in my opinion.
Btw, do you realize the importance of blowing up the building in relation to Dominique?
Ex-CEO of Taggart Transdimensional
"Objectivism is not only true, it is great! Why? Because of the volitional work a mind must have performed to reach for the first time so exalted a level of truth—and because of all the glorious effects such knowledge will have on man’s life, all the possibilities of action it opens up for the future." -- Leonard Peikoff
Btw, do you realize the importance of blowing up the building in relation to Dominique?
No, enlighten me. It has been many years since my reading.
In short, Dominique was set "free" after she participated in the explosion plan. Afterwards, she felt free from the world that she feared would defeat Roark. That's why she was able to go to Roark even before the trial.
Ex-CEO of Taggart Transdimensional
"Objectivism is not only true, it is great! Why? Because of the volitional work a mind must have performed to reach for the first time so exalted a level of truth—and because of all the glorious effects such knowledge will have on man’s life, all the possibilities of action it opens up for the future." -- Leonard Peikoff
Petyr Baelich wrote:All irrelevant. It was Roark's building to do with as he pleased. He had every right to do whatever the hell he wanted with his building.
In the context of The Fountainhead, that's true.
Just be careful not to promote Anarchism if you assume any context.
To me the ownership aspect of the building is a complication. Clearly it was Roark’s art. Without his vision the building could not have been made.
But Roark’s labor or materials were not used in the construction.
So we run into a great question about real property vs. intellectual property.
In a sense I think the story was constructed in such a way that Roark had to commit one crime (destruction of property), to prevent another (adulteration of his design). And once that happened Roark was broken in the eyes of Dominique and Gail. A defeat Dominique and Gail both wanted since the early stages of the story.
Keep your sharpened steel sword, this wooden one will be all I need!
So we run into a great question about real property vs. intellectual property.
Good observation. We can surmise that Rand believes creative intellectual property is worth more than the physical aspect of that property. Petyr stated that (any?) life is worth more than an inanimate object. Let me also add that a great idea is worth more than life (but lousy idea not worth my spit).
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots...
musashi wrote:But Roark’s labor or materials were not used in the construction.
So, because looters used their own tools to build HIS building. They now own the implementation of HIS plans?
Nonsense.
Ex-CEO of Taggart Transdimensional
"Objectivism is not only true, it is great! Why? Because of the volitional work a mind must have performed to reach for the first time so exalted a level of truth—and because of all the glorious effects such knowledge will have on man’s life, all the possibilities of action it opens up for the future." -- Leonard Peikoff
So we run into a great question about real property vs. intellectual property.
Good observation. We can surmise that Rand believes creative intellectual property is worth more than the physical aspect of that property. Petyr stated that (any?) life is worth more than an inanimate object. Let me also add that a great idea is worth more than life (but lousy idea not worth my spit).
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots...
Jefferson seemed to think so too.
So, gross simplification of values to follow:
... < inanimate object < life < ideas < ...
If you truly believe this crap you're a horrible individual. I'd put you up there with Hitler and Stalin as far as the morality of your philosophy goes. A great idea is worth more than life?! Not my life, buddy. Get up on a soapbox and say that and see how fast I can get my gun. There is no higher value than human life. None. Without life, no other values are possible. I cannot conceive of a more evil concept than placing ideas above life. That is a tool of a totalitarian dictator. It doesn't matter if the idea is the greatest in the history of mankind, or how many lives it can potentially save or affect... if it requires the sacrifice of even one life, that idea is immoral and should be treated as such.
musashi wrote:But Roark’s labor or materials were not used in the construction.
So, because looters used their own tools to build HIS building. They now own the implementation of HIS plans?
The original architect of the ranch-style slab house did not design my house. My house was designed (and arguably corrupted) by an imitator. Yet if the original designer blew up my home, I’d say he had no legal right to the action.
Keep your sharpened steel sword, this wooden one will be all I need!
So we run into a great question about real property vs. intellectual property.
Good observation. We can surmise that Rand believes creative intellectual property is worth more than the physical aspect of that property. Petyr stated that (any?) life is worth more than an inanimate object. Let me also add that a great idea is worth more than life (but lousy idea not worth my spit).
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots...
Jefferson seemed to think so too.
So, gross simplification of values to follow:
... < inanimate object < life < ideas < ...
If you truly believe this crap you're a horrible individual. I'd put you up there with Hitler and Stalin as far as the morality of your philosophy goes. A great idea is worth more than life?! Not my life, buddy. Get up on a soapbox and say that and see how fast I can get my gun. There is no higher value than human life. None. Without life, no other values are possible. I cannot conceive of a more evil concept than placing ideas above life. That is a tool of a totalitarian dictator. It doesn't matter if the idea is the greatest in the history of mankind, or how many lives it can potentially save or affect... if it requires the sacrifice of even one life, that idea is immoral and should be treated as such.
Get 'im.
Just call me Tyn!
-Or- high-protector of rational thinking, lord steward of things objective, lover of Babs, defender of anti-randroidism, his wholiness, Tynenor.
musashi wrote:But Roark’s labor or materials were not used in the construction.
So, because looters used their own tools to build HIS building. They now own the implementation of HIS plans?
The original architect of the ranch-style slab house did not design my house. My house was designed (and arguably corrupted) by an imitator. Yet if the original designer blew up my home, I’d say he had no legal right to the action.
Did you sign a contract with the original architect of the ranch-style house and then have someone else build it and corrupt the designs? Is your house standing empty without any of your possessions in it and no one living in it? Roark's actions taken out of context and applied to a completely different situation would be wrong, sure. A is A. Not B, C, or D.
Let me preface my reply by saying that my application has been turned down due to differences in our ideas.
This thread has been interesting. I've come to better understand why I felt uncomfortable about Roark blowing up his building.
I still stand by my opinion that a great idea is worth more than life - if you believe in a great idea, you fight for it, even if it means you could be killed. I don't mean sacrificing your life in some dumb way, but I mean being willing to put ourselves in harms way.
I fear some of you do not see that the purpose of life is not simply to live for the sake of living.
The US Constitution has some pretty amazing ideas, but that would not have been possible without independence from the English (hence my Jefferson quote). A lot of people fought and died for it, and I'm glad they fought and died for it rather than let themselves be bullied by the English. The right to bear arms is the 2nd amendment of the constitution, as a means for citizens to rebel if they're oppressed by their government. Please try not to shoot anyone who simply disagrees with you.
Last edited by Pyr Oura on Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pyr Oura wrote:Let me preface my reply by saying that my application has been turned down due to differences in our ideas.
This thread has been interesting. I've come to better understand why I felt uncomfortable about Roark blowing up his building.
I still stand by my opinion that a great idea is worth more than life - if you believe in a great idea, you fight for it, even if it means you could be killed. I don't mean sacrificing your life in some dumb way, but I mean being willing to put ourselves in harms way.
I fear some of you do not see that the purpose of life is not simply to live for the sake of living.
Stalin and Hitler did not have great ideas in my opinion. Marx had some interesting but deeply flawed ideas. The US Constitution has some pretty amazing ideas, but that would not have been possible without independence from the English (hence my Jefferson quote). A lot of people fought and died for it, and I'm glad they fought and died for it rather than let themselves be bullied by the English.
Do you even see where you're contradicting yourself? A great idea is only a great idea if it is life-affirming and acknowledges life as the supreme value! This implies that life is a greater value than ideas. Your Jefferson quote is bullshit because it implies that sacrifice is required for values to be obtained. My values require that I NEVER sacrifice anything. I spent 6 years in the army as a medic; I was deployed in Turkey and Iraq. I volunteered after September 11th, and although I was never in direct combat, I knew that it was always a possibility, and if required by the situation, I would risk my life to end the threat to it implied by nations under the control of anti-rational, life-hating terrorists. But my blood was never required as a sacrifice to ensure freedom. Just the opposite.
Pyr Oura wrote:Petyr - I really fail to see why you disagree with me. Especially if you're in the army.
The difference is I believe all sacrifice to be evil, (and I'll define sacrifice to be clear; Sacrifice is the conscious trade of a greater value for a lesser one) irregardless of its result. I am a teleologist, and you are a deontologist, (or at least your stated views are). There are situations where I would risk my life, but there are none where I would sacrifice it. It is not a sacrifice for me to die while fighting to protect those whom I love. It is not a sacrifice for me to fight for something I believe in, and it would be a sacrifice for me not to fight. The difference is that I apply everything to the standards of an objective reality. Life is my highest value because it is the basis of all other values. Two opposing views cannot both be equally valid. One of them is correct (in accordance with reality which exists independantly of an observer) and the other is false. There can be no compromise between opposing philosophies. In any compromise between good and evil it is evil that triumphs, just as in any compromise between food and poison, it is poison that wins.
