For quite some time now — in fact, as far back as I can remember — I have never once said that I am an objectivist, when asked. I have consistently answered though (such as on the Free the Animal blog), that “I am Howard Roark”.
But what exactly does that mean — to not label myself an objectivist, all the while claiming that “I am Howard Roark”?
While this answer has been appealing to me for some time, it was only a few weeks ago that I came to understand what the hell I meant by this.
The understanding unfolded itself to me when I heard that Ayn Rand was once asked, in regards to The Fountainhead, why it’s main character Howard Roark, not only chose to, but had to wait for his ideal woman to see the world the way he did — to hold his convictions on the deepest of levels as her own.
Why was it that Howard Roark waited instead of simply explaining to Dominique Francon what he lived and knew to be true?
Rand’s answer paraphrased: ” (laugh) … that’s easy. Howard Roark didn’t write The Fountainhead, I did.”
I knew the moment I heard this answer that it was one of the most profound ideas I would ever come across. I knew it was the reason I consistently stated that I was not an objectivist … but was in fact, Howard Roark.
Or John Galt. Or Hank Rearden.
~~~
So what exactly are the implications of this? Do I reject objectivist philosophy? Do I embrace it? Do I embrace it only half-way and half-heartedly? (the fact that I find this third question very amusing should be equally revealing as it is amusing).
In all honesty, the questions have never seemed relevant to me in the privacy of my own mind. I think because, like Rand’s fictional character, I am so wrapped up in living the philosophy, I am unable to step back far enough and grasp it intellectually, at least to the degree that I am able to outwardly and verbally express it in such a way that “the public” can understand.
Not even close.
A great expression of this was in London this past June. I wanted to incorporate philosophy into The 21 Convention, but I knew I was not the man to do it. I knew that James Steele II was though, so I asked him to do so, and he did — in a profound way and to an astounding degree.
The speech was awesome.
This concept applies elsewhere as well. I am not a nutritionist — but I know where to find the best information, for myself, and for where to point others, and in what order.
I am not an exercise physiologist, or trainer, but I know where to find the best information, for myself, and for where to point others, and in what order they need to learn the right information.
I am not a legal scholar or historian — but I know where to find the best information, and I know what it means and translates as objectively in our code of laws today. I know my federal government doesn’t have the right to put a gun to my head — and I know where and in what order to point others for this information.
And so on and so forth.
This applies across virtually every subject I take on and take interest in. I never take on the subject as a part of who I am — or if I do, it’s for a very short span of time.
Why?
Because I am to busy being Howard Roark. I am to busy finishing what Ayn started. I am not merely depicting the ideal man, I am actualizing him into physical reality.
And I chose to start with myself first.
This is why I am not, and what I mean when I say, that I am “not an objectivist”. I am Howard Roark. And while I understand a very broad range of topics to the degree necessary for my purposes, I do not understand them, typically, to the degree that I can explain them on an instructional basis, or if so, to only a mild degree.
This I think is why 99% of what I produce, on this blog, and via The 21 Convention, is completely lacking “how to” instruction, and is almost entirely what and why based.
Nothing else makes sense to me in light of the sum of my convictions for my life and my work.
~~~
As a closing statement, perhaps the best this was ever put was in a single sentence, written in an attempt to summarize the theme of this blog. It was written by James Steele II, and it was that the theme (in fact the only discernible theme) of this blog is man as an end in himself.
The ideal man is an end in himself. This is my only real, primary interest. This statement is dead on, and a brother idea to the statement that I am not an objectivist — I am Howard Roark.
– Anthony Dream Johnson
Well said.
I don’t think any person who understands Objectivism would ever believe you to be an Objectivist.
Why should they? I’m not. I’m Howard Roark.
Profound.
I wonder if Howard Roark would ever refer to himself as anyone other than “Howard Roark”
Only this clown would be proud to be Howard Roark. Funny how every male I’ve known who enjoys Rand’s bullshit tends to have real relationship problems.
Go figure lol…
Thanks Anthony. This reminds me of a quote outside the British Library which was just down the road from where The 21 Convention was held in London this year.
“Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves, or we know where we can find information on it.”
I’m an Objectivist. No need for any figures of speech.
Howard Roark changed my life.
The understanding unfolded itself to me when I heard that Ayn Rand was once asked, in regards to The Fountainhead, why it’s main character Howard Roark, not only chose to, but had to wait for his ideal woman to see the world the way he did — to hold his convictions on the deepest of levels as her own.
Why was it that Howard Roark waited instead of simply explaining to Dominique Francon what he lived and knew to be true?
Rand’s answer paraphrased: ” (laugh) … that’s easy. Howard Roark didn’t write The Fountainhead, I did.”
YOU MEAN AYN RAND didn’t claim to be Howard Roark?!?!?!
I’ll tell you why, Howie had to wait for Dominique to EXPERIENCE FOR HERSELF what he had already lived and knew to be true. Had he simply explained to Dominique what he had lived and known, it wouldn’t make it “true” for her.
Like I said elsewhere there is no point in telling anyone how they *should* think or what they *should* do – they have to live the experience first for it to be real to them.
You said that was “stupid”….. but just see, your idol Ayn Rand has expressed the very same thing through her characters and you’re all hunky dory with it.
That’s what I mean when I say you argue for arguments sake where there is actually no argument if you would bother reading and UNDERSTANDING what someone is writing and then also recall where you have said similar yourself elsehwere, like right here.
While man may be a worthy end in himself, there is no “contrariness for the sake of contrariness is a worthy end in itself”.