You’re correct to notice that this post is definitely a Death of the Author take; I agree that Rand wouldn’t endorse my interpretation of her work.
That said, I don’t think I’m arguing for descriptive egoism! I’m not just pointing out that Taggart and Boyle’s luxury consumption and corrupt profiteering look conventionally selfish (even though Rand thinks these behaviors stem from a deep selflessness). I’m also pointing out that Rearden further burdening himself to help Mr. Ward (or Dagny supporting Cherryl, or Galt risking himself to protect Dagny, or Roark paying Mallory’s rent, &c.) looks conventionally altruistic (even though Rand wouldn’t use that word).
The fact that Rand’s concepts (e.g., altruism as sacrifice of values) differ from more conventional concepts that use the same words (e.g., altruism as benefitting other people) is lampshaded twice in The Fountainhead. In a conversation between Keating and Roark:
“[...] But egotists are not kind. And you are. You’re the most egotistical and kindest man I know. And that doesn’t make sense.”
“Maybe the concepts don’t make sense. Maybe they don’t mean what people have been taught to think they mean [...]”
And between Wynand and Roark:
“You made a mistake on the Stoddard Temple, Howard. That statue should have been, not of Dominique, but of you.”
“No. I’m too egotistical for that.”
“Egotistical? An egotist would have loved it. You use words in the strangest way.”
“In the exact way. I don’t wish to be the symbol of anything. I’m only myself.”
I interpret Roark’s remark that “maybe the concepts don’t make sense” as amounting to the claim that conventional usage of “selfish” as self-benefitting and “altruism” as other-benefitting, doesn’t carve the reality of human psychology at the joints: benevolence towards others flows out of shared values; unconditional regard others-in-general is unnatural. (See also the @InstanceOfClass epigraph at the top of the post.)
The term “altruism” was at the time of The Fountainhead’s writing — or at least at the time of Ayn Rand’s youth — used in a much stronger sense than it is now, referring not only to a disposition towards charity, but to something more along the lines of what we’d now describe as selflessness. Since then, memes favourable to self-affirmation have entered the dominant culture from the integration of sexual minorities and especially the black gay scene. Thus, the apparent discrepancy in vocabulary is to at least a certain extent a generational gap.
Setting that aside, I think there is an important distinction between having unnatural categories that lump completely separate phenomena together and having coherent categories that are systematically being used as smears in a case they don’t properly refer to. If for example some culture is in the habit of referring to atheists as idiots, it does not mean they are using the word “idiot” in a sense that conflates these two phenomena, but simply that they are trying to insult atheists.
While that distinction is obvious in this case, I do believe it is often accidentally erased in the name of linguistic descriptivism. The meaning of a word is not merely how it is commonly used, but what people intend to convey by it. When people accuse someone of selfishness, they really do mean someone who is highly egocentric and doesn’t care about other people. In Ayn Rand’s time, it was of course used somewhat more broadly, since it was also considered selfish to care about your own friends, your own family etc. more than your fellow countrymen or indeed the whole human race.
Howard Roark’s line there is indeed alluding to the tendency of people to conflate selfishness with narcissism, which does constitute failure to carve reality along the joints, but a similar conversation with Gail Wynand clearly implies that Roark believes this unnatural category stems from people being mistaken about the psychology behind narcissism. Ayn Rand’s position is that people have a profound antipathy towards selfishness as she uses the term, much more so than they do towards narcissism of the Peter Keating variety, and that when they do on occasion want to decry narcissism, they do it by associating it with selfishness.
Benevolence towards others flows out of shared values; unconditional regard others-in-general is unnatural.
Now there’s a nice quotable quote. I don’t think it’s entirely accurate, unless people with certain kinds of lobe damage or meditation history count as “unnatural”. (Which I suppose they could.) On the other hand, those people arguably have brains that define others as themselves, and thus having shared values with said ohters as a matter of course. (Or alternately, I suppose they have a very expansive definition of “shared values”.)
But as a truism or proverb, this makes a lot of sense, and should be helpful to people who suffer from feeling like they should care more about others-in-general. Knowing that caring spreads by way of shared values makes it possible to find the caring one already has, before trying to extend it further. (Rather than constantly going to a well you’re told should be full, and always finding it dry.)
You’re correct to notice that this post is definitely a Death of the Author take; I agree that Rand wouldn’t endorse my interpretation of her work.
That said, I don’t think I’m arguing for descriptive egoism! I’m not just pointing out that Taggart and Boyle’s luxury consumption and corrupt profiteering look conventionally selfish (even though Rand thinks these behaviors stem from a deep selflessness). I’m also pointing out that Rearden further burdening himself to help Mr. Ward (or Dagny supporting Cherryl, or Galt risking himself to protect Dagny, or Roark paying Mallory’s rent, &c.) looks conventionally altruistic (even though Rand wouldn’t use that word).
The fact that Rand’s concepts (e.g., altruism as sacrifice of values) differ from more conventional concepts that use the same words (e.g., altruism as benefitting other people) is lampshaded twice in The Fountainhead. In a conversation between Keating and Roark:
And between Wynand and Roark:
I interpret Roark’s remark that “maybe the concepts don’t make sense” as amounting to the claim that conventional usage of “selfish” as self-benefitting and “altruism” as other-benefitting, doesn’t carve the reality of human psychology at the joints: benevolence towards others flows out of shared values; unconditional regard others-in-general is unnatural. (See also the @InstanceOfClass epigraph at the top of the post.)
The term “altruism” was at the time of The Fountainhead’s writing — or at least at the time of Ayn Rand’s youth — used in a much stronger sense than it is now, referring not only to a disposition towards charity, but to something more along the lines of what we’d now describe as selflessness. Since then, memes favourable to self-affirmation have entered the dominant culture from the integration of sexual minorities and especially the black gay scene. Thus, the apparent discrepancy in vocabulary is to at least a certain extent a generational gap.
Setting that aside, I think there is an important distinction between having unnatural categories that lump completely separate phenomena together and having coherent categories that are systematically being used as smears in a case they don’t properly refer to. If for example some culture is in the habit of referring to atheists as idiots, it does not mean they are using the word “idiot” in a sense that conflates these two phenomena, but simply that they are trying to insult atheists.
While that distinction is obvious in this case, I do believe it is often accidentally erased in the name of linguistic descriptivism. The meaning of a word is not merely how it is commonly used, but what people intend to convey by it. When people accuse someone of selfishness, they really do mean someone who is highly egocentric and doesn’t care about other people. In Ayn Rand’s time, it was of course used somewhat more broadly, since it was also considered selfish to care about your own friends, your own family etc. more than your fellow countrymen or indeed the whole human race.
Howard Roark’s line there is indeed alluding to the tendency of people to conflate selfishness with narcissism, which does constitute failure to carve reality along the joints, but a similar conversation with Gail Wynand clearly implies that Roark believes this unnatural category stems from people being mistaken about the psychology behind narcissism. Ayn Rand’s position is that people have a profound antipathy towards selfishness as she uses the term, much more so than they do towards narcissism of the Peter Keating variety, and that when they do on occasion want to decry narcissism, they do it by associating it with selfishness.
Now there’s a nice quotable quote. I don’t think it’s entirely accurate, unless people with certain kinds of lobe damage or meditation history count as “unnatural”. (Which I suppose they could.) On the other hand, those people arguably have brains that define others as themselves, and thus having shared values with said ohters as a matter of course. (Or alternately, I suppose they have a very expansive definition of “shared values”.)
But as a truism or proverb, this makes a lot of sense, and should be helpful to people who suffer from feeling like they should care more about others-in-general. Knowing that caring spreads by way of shared values makes it possible to find the caring one already has, before trying to extend it further. (Rather than constantly going to a well you’re told should be full, and always finding it dry.)