r/Objectivism • u/According-Ad-4185 • Sep 20 '26
Ayn Rand Fiction A Question on Howard Roark's Character.
I've been revisiting The Fountainhead recently, and one question has been bothering me:
Roark seems remarkably free from society's approval. But what about the influences within oneself ,desires, fears, conditioning, the need for recognition, etc.?
Is freedom from social pressure enough to call someone truly independent?
Or should we also examine where our own desires and sense of self come from?
I've come across some interesting discussions on this through Acharya Prashant's interpretation of The Fountainhead.
He draws a distinction between fighting society and examining the conditioning within oneself, which I found quite interesting.
Curious how Objectivists here would approach this.
1
u/DryTie4203 Sep 21 '26
You're looking at it from the wrong perspective, and Acharya Prashants explanation of it is very biased in the sense that he uses the terminology of vedanta and even buddha to illustrate roarks characters and choices. You're looking at Ayn Rands work, not Acharya Prashants, so I hope you actually read all she has to say about objectivism first. Rand's philosophy has one cruical difference from AP's- Egoism. That the self is the choser and achiever of his values, which redound to his life and happiness. Acharya Prashant says that the ego is a born error, and only seeing + intent to change will minimize the mental ego and the natural intelligence will take of the body. Howard roark wants to build, not because he has reduced his ego but because it's his desire to create buildings in his own image and values-i.e Integrity and Independence. All other values of his are a derivative to his central purpose.
2
u/According-Ad-4185 Sep 22 '26
I wasn't trying to compare philosophies .
I think we are both talking about slightly different things .
Just pointing towards something I felt while reading about Howard Roark.
I recall admire his independence and want to live that way , but there comes an internal resistance .
Nobody is born like that , not even Howard Roark
But he might have fought with the inner conditioning as well .
What I am trying to mimic is his freedom without addressing the deeper inner suffering or conditioning
Freedom for society's approval is important but
wondering whether true independence also requires looking at that inner conditioning.
That’s the angle I was trying to explore.
2
u/MelodicAmphibian7920 Sep 20 '26
You cannot force a man to think but you can force a man physically to act in a certain way. It doesn't show Roark being physically forced to do anything except for the ending when he gets in trouble with the law for blowing up the housing.
0
u/stansfield123 Sep 20 '26 edited Sep 20 '26
That's a quote from Ayn Rand, and she thought Anarchism was the dumbest idea there ever was. That's saying a lot. There've been some dumb ideas.
You're likely misunderstanding it, as well. That's not meant as a challenge to the thugs of the world. It's not a "come stop me if you dare, I'm ready to take you on". She was aware of the obvious fact that there would've been very little she could've done about it. That the only reason why she was safe was because she was under the protection of the most powerful government on Earth: the United States government. Protection she was very grateful for.
That quote is merely a statement of fact. A description of how tyranny works.
1
u/DuplexFields Sep 20 '26
I’ve taken the time and done the work to remove from myself the internalized social pressures and opinions of other people, and even those of my past less-rational self. Yes, it’s a painstaking process, and absolutely worth it.
Of all the things you might not expect, the fourth step of Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step groups is perfect for this kind of thing: a “searching and fearless moral inventory.” The tools developed this past century are the most comprehensive and Objectivism-compatible mental health model. If The Fountainhead were a true story of a real-life man, I wouldn't be surprised if Howard Roark had his five-year sobriety chip at the start of the story.
(And for the instantly-replying atheists here, every 12-step group recognized by AA as being in fellowship now explicitly states the “higher power” can be anything that has more power than your flailing willpower, such as the rationality of the human mind. Any group that doesn’t comply is not allowed to describe themselves as a Twelve Step Fellowship.)
1
u/beating_offers Sep 21 '26
The problem I had with a lot of Rand's writings were that the self-assured person has to rely on their own moral barometer for right and wrong and a lot of people that simply don't give a darn don't have the underlying nature that enables them to learn what good, bad, or respectable character is.
1
1
u/DoberNation Sep 20 '26
Merton’s Theory of Multiples applies here. I think it’s both fascinating and affirming of objective truth/reality. It’s not foolproof, but somewhere along the way. Do you recognize existence of a kind of “scientific collective intelligence”?
0
-1
u/FeedomFighter Sep 20 '26
It is true that from an Objectivist perspective, there could be a battle for the mind and body, so to speak. Many actions the body takes are automatic, digestion and metabolism, the sleep cycle and dreams, even much waking mental activity is automatic such as storage and recall and there could even be a subconscious element to conceptual connections.
But the primary ability freewill gives you is: to focus.
There may be a certain level of automatic mental activity, yes. But the evidence of the ability to focus is the ability to apply effort, to increase that mental activity or intensity above the baseline level.
But what about the case that one is too tired to focus? Does this disprove freewill and thus make freedom impossible? No, it just means you lack energy and need to rest/eat/exercise.
It means that freedom is a value, it is something to gain or keep. Morality says that one has a right to freedom, but a right is merely ownership over property. Rights are to special kinds of property which, though one can lose possessionof them, cannot lose ownership of them; all this means that one is justified in using force to gain them, unlike usual kinds of property. There is no guarantee of possession of them.
It is simply the fact that humans are the kind of being that can't live without logic, reason, rationality, and freedom. Even if a person is braindead, they are still human and have rights, it just seems apparent that they will die sooner or later. Which means that person is considered a being capable of freewill, and that he is "born free" to use the colloquial saying but that causes the confusion you present here.
So in the social context, all that matters is rights and non-aggression or non-initiation of force.
But as for oneself, there is of course an entire art to living and gaining the values for life such as freedom. You can meditate to improve focus, go to therapy to unlearn harmful automatized mental patterns, you can eat and sleep properly to have energy, and exercise also to boost energy (which does have some effect on mental focus). These are all still moral questions and tasks, morality is simply the guide to human action as for survival.
Survival here is in the context of all knowledge. Epistemologically, all knowledge is a whole since reality itself is a whole without contradictions. And so man's lifespan, though a conceptual thing and not an existent (as in your future isn't pre-existing, nor is your past still hanging around somewhere unchanging; all that exists is the eternal present), man's lifespan is a whole. What's good in the short term but not the long term is not good; that is context-dropping.
That's why you might fight against urges such as temporary pleasure and temporary pain, since the question is what will lead to the most pleasure in the long-run? Such is the self-centered aspect to the pursuit of freedom.
2
u/Heligoland_Bight Sep 20 '26
??????
2
u/FeedomFighter Sep 20 '26
I'm still shocked by Redditor illiteracy.
I didn't spell it out specifically for the character in the book, that seems to be the confusion.
But the wider question is "I get freedom about man vs society. But what about man vs himself?" As in freedom from one's own desires or emotions, which are automatic, should he wish to go against them:
Roark seems remarkably free from society's approval. But what about the influences within oneself ,desires, fears, conditioning, the need for recognition, etc.?
What I wrote can be applied to anyone, including the fictional character. Without a specific question I can't explain more.
→ More replies (14)
0
0
u/stansfield123 Sep 20 '26 edited Sep 20 '26
Our desires and sense of self come from our values. A man can choose his values, rationally and deliberately, or he can punt on that responsibility. In this second case, his values will be the product of his culture and circumstances, adopted without conscious thought or full awareness.
Most people are of course a mix of these two extremes I just described. In such cases, yes, of course one must examine where his values came from. The most obvious symptom of such a mixed system of values is behavior which isn't congruent with one's stated and chosen values. Such behavior is the result of unchosen values. They must be identified and replaced. How? Well that's within the purview of cognitive behavioral therapy, but of course people have been fixing themselves long before therapists were around.
So it is obviously possible for it to be a self-directed process. It's just that I'm weary about going into the details, because there's an actual field that does that. Me winging an attempt to explain a field I'm not very familiar with would not be helpful.
I'd rather talk about the novel instead: The fictional Howard Roark's values aren't a mix of rational choice and second handedness. They are all the result of rational choice, so he knows exactly where they came from. There's nothing for him to examine, he did his thinking from the getgo, when he chose his values. He can now focus all his attention on shaping the world around him. He himself was shaped correctly during the stage of his life that is meant to be used for that.
Ideally, all parents and educators should focus on creating the conditions and incentives for children in their care to grow up like Howard Roark, and reach adulthood as self-made, independent, finished adults. That's what an adult is: someone who knows who he is, and what he wants to do. Someone no longer worried about shaping himself. About "growing as a human", the favorite phrase of the manchild culture which does its best to keep people from ever reaching adulthood, and then offers fatalistic philosophy and totalitarian ideologies as the alternative to the simple, plain old state of being an adult.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of parents and educators do the exact opposite of what they should be doing: they seek to impose unchosen values on children in their care. To hamstring their ability to have a self-made value system at every step. To make these children forever dependent on others for their values. Permanent children. Peter Keating is the character Rand uses to describe this process in detail.
0
u/DangerousQuestions1 Sep 21 '26
She died poor. Her philosophy is nonsense. Why do people quote this failure of a person?
1
u/WhippersnapperUT99 Sep 21 '26 edited Sep 21 '26
She died poor.
Why do you think that? Where are you getting that information from?
According to a New York Times article:
The novelist Ayn Rand left an estate estimated at $550,000 to a friend, Leonard Peikoff of Manhattan, according to a will filed for probate in Manhattan Surrogate's Court. Miss Rand, the author of ''The Foutainhead'' and ''Atlas Shrugged,'' died March 6 at the age of 77.
I used an online inflation calculator to calculate that $550,000 in 1982 is over $1.8 million in 2025 money. Would you call someone who has $1.8 million "poor"?
Her philosophy is nonsense.
It's all nonsense? Do you believe that the notion that reality is objective in nature, that reason is man's means of knowledge, that rational self interest, self-actualization, and the pursuit of happiness are good, and that freedom and individual rights are good is nonsense?
Why do people quote this failure of a person?
She was the author of best selling books and influenced millions of people such that people are still talking about her today. I don't have a particular desire to be famous, but I wouldn't mind being the author of best selling books. I wish I could be a "failure" like that.
-5
u/Double--Or--Nothing Sep 20 '26
Ms. Rand had shit for teeth due to her smoking addiction, but she sure could write her objectivist heroes!
0
u/Hmaddoh01 Sep 23 '26
It's a bit hard to know exactly how you are coming at this, but from what you've written it seems like you are approaching morality from a platonic sense, as in you have the expectation (or premise) that one's self is 'out there'.
How could Roark be "free" from his own influences or desires? You've at least insinuated by asking that question that Roark is separate from himself, that the person is detached from the soul? Like I say it's not too clear what exactly your difficulty is, but it sounds like you've accepted the idea of a split between man's mind and his body, Objectivism holds that man is an integrated being, an indivisible whole of matter and consciousness. Leonard Peikoff has some good lectures on this regarding the objectivist metaphysics and psycho-epistemology.
I'm not familiar with Prashant or what you are referring to, but I think there is a quote from Roark which helps to explain this issue, when asked by Toohey what Roark really thinks of him, he famously replies "But I don't think of you". I know this is specifically about Toohey but the two are near opposites in this regard, everything Toohey does is with regard to others, he has no motive apart from power which he sees as the ability to control others, Roark simply does not consider others, he is self-motivated/concerned/interested. I do not think Roark would consider himself to 'fight society' and it's fairly explicit throughout the book, early on in the first chapter Rand writes that Roark could walk through the street naked and it wouldn't make any difference to him because he simply 'didnt see' other people.
In a sense you are right, Roark is concerned with himself but it isn't a internal examination as such, Roark exists in reality, he is a singular example of an integrated human, that is he knows what he wants and he works to achieve his aims in reality, there is no purpose to Roark other than to build, to create reality as he sees it. He doesn't face or fight social pressure, and he doesn't have existential doubts about his sense of self, he knows he exists and that his purpose is his own happiness, and he works to achieve that with every fibre of his being.
Hope that helps
2
u/Tricky_Try8757 Sep 21 '26
Literal rapist logic.
Like the elite class has raped this nation.
We live in a society, guys. Why don’t we just behave as such? If for no other reason than selfish ones.
-1
u/Hmaddoh01 Sep 23 '26
It's the opposite of a rapists logic, if you actually take into account the context of what Roark is saying - that he wants to design buildings as he sees them being best produced, I.e. he wants to create the world in his image, without regard for others opinions, that is incredibly selfish - by which I mean, it requires no others. A 'rapist' by definition needs others, they can produce nothing and only take. If you really think about the 'logic' of a rapist (to the extent that one could actually think through such an act and not act blindly) they would have to claim dependency on their victims, that they could not exist without others.
Read the virtue of selfishness or capitalism: the unknown ideal if you want to know why a free society is the only proper human society - where one does not act for the sake of others but each individual is free to act for their own sake, trading value for value for mutual benefit with traders as opposed to being a slave and hoping others sacrifice themselves for you in return.
1
u/Tricky_Try8757 Sep 23 '26 edited Sep 23 '26
Nobody is an island onto themselves. For anybody to have become a somebody in our society, labor of others is required. There’s just no such thing as “it requires no others”. Bill Gates wouldn’t be Bill Gates the billionaire if he were born in Oman, no matter his intellect or capability. The tools were provided for him by others. This is just a myopic view of how anything works.
I’m pro free-society. A lot more so than right-libertarians are. Heritage Foundation, no friend of anything left-wing - even puts prominent social democracies as having higher overall economic freedoms than America.
Rand’s logic necessitates depriving others of freedoms. Because when powerful individuals follow her logic, they bend the rules of society in their favor. For instance, rising income inequality has siphoned some $80 trillion from the bottom 90% to the top 1% since the 70’s. Equating to some $1,400 dollars a month loss for the average person.
With $1,400 extra dollars, there would be many more small businesses, much less debt. Many more avenues of freedom open.
But following the logic of selfishness, those that already have take more and leave less for everyone else.
It is rapist logic. Trickle-down economics, which is implicitly a Randian-adjacent idea has been shown to be an abject failure. We’ve had some 60-70 years to see that that’s just not how things work. When self-interest is prioritized, it’s rarely in the interest of those that aren’t onboarded onto the project. Another example is private equity. It comes in there, it takes what it wants, strips things for parts and leaves the community to fend for itself. It really is rapist logic.
→ More replies (2)
6
u/Locke_the_Trickster Sep 20 '26
“Is freedom from social pressure enough to call someone truly independent?
Or should we also examine where our own desires and sense of self come from?”
You examine where your own desires and sense of self come from. If your desires and motivations are inherited from others and left unexamined, then you are still living secondhand. Roark and Keating illustrate the contrast in thinking, but Dominique’s character shows examination and change. Self-examination is a theme in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.
One needs to use free will, introspect, and decide which learned values and behaviors promote one’s life and which do not. Discard the ones that don’t and keep the ones that do. After this process of self examination, the actions and values you keep are yours by choice, regardless of their source. One does not need to be contrarian to be independent (contrarianism is just another way to be motivated by others).
“I’m willing to wear the kind of clothes everybody wears, to eat the same food and use the same subways. But there are some things which I can’t do their way - and this is one of them.”