15

"Actors change, but the course of the tragedy remains the same. A humanitarian who starts with declarations of love for mankind and ends with a sea of blood." - Howard Roark

Posted by GaltsGulch 2 years, 10 months ago to The Gulch: General
21 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

"Actors change, but the course of the tragedy remains the same. A humanitarian who starts with declarations of love for mankind and ends with a sea of blood." - Howard Roark


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by DrZarkov99 2 years, 9 months ago
    Idealists reject the real world in favor of a mythical, perfect Utopian vision. In their world, anyone who doesn't fit their vision of what people are supposed to be is considered at best defective, and at worst, evil. The subsequent actions lead to a conclusion that society must be cleansed of the defective and evil in order to allow the perfect world to develop. The bloodbath is what follows.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  allosaur 2 years, 9 months ago
    Me dino wonders if the USA will end like one of the famous Ancient Greek Tragedy plays.
    At our demise Oedipus won't need to tear his eyes out. Those who lead us and those who vote for them are all already flying blind.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 2 years, 9 months ago
    In my 82 years, I've seen this play out in dozens of situations, from the local homeowner's association, up through every part of business and government.
    While in the more mundane scenes, it doesn't end in blood, but always a negative result, with the people who were supposed to benefit the most, wind up benefitting the least.
    This leads me to the possibility of a discussion. Who do you or did you know who was most like Howard Roark? What about him or her, that makes you think of Roark?What was their profession, how did their attitude manifest?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 2 years, 9 months ago
    To be a visionary, one must start with a dream about what the future may be. The real question is not whether or not the person claims to love mankind, but whether or not the ideals he/she would use to pursue their ideal preserve basic rights. The quote condemns the ends but is incomplete without a discussion of means.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 2 years, 9 months ago
    This is what I have always tried to teach my children. If they will observe the passing of each election and even if the heads change the play remains the same. There is no difference between one or the other except the lies and promises they will tell to get elected, then the play proceeds and the course of the tragedy remains the same.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Esceptico 2 years, 9 months ago
    Sounds as much like H. L. Mencken as Roark
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Bethesda-gal 2 years, 9 months ago
      I knew the name Mencken was familiar to me but couldn't place it exactly so googled it. Among other things I read this: " Mencken opposed American entry into World War I and World War II. His diary indicates that he harbored some strong racist and antisemitic attitudes."
      That counts me out of his fan club.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Esceptico 2 years, 9 months ago
        If you must have 100% agreement with somebody to join their fan club, then your choices are probably limited to yourself. My point was not about Mencken. The point is what Roark said was very, very, similar to a Mencken type of comment.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Bethesda-gal 2 years, 9 months ago
          No, 100% agreement is an unrealistic threshold. But some things, like being opposed to U.S. involvement in WWII, is a deal breaker for me.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Esceptico 2 years, 9 months ago
            I guess I do not understand what the “deal” is that you see as broken. My point, again, is that Rand’s words through Roark’s character sound as if they could come from Mencken. What “deal” is involved? Sorry, but I just don’t understand.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Bethesda-gal 2 years, 9 months ago
              I understand your comparing Roark's words to Mencken's but I'm separating Mencken from Roark. Being Jewish, I take exception to those who criticize the U.S. involvement in WWII, as Mencken apparently did. That is the "deal". Does that clarify ?
              It is like when someone is 95% great and 5% bad its a deal breaker when the 5% is unforgiveable. Its like saying Ted Bundy was ( I'm fictionalizing for illustrative purposes here) a terrific guy because he recycled and was a gourmet chef and volunteered at a soup kitchen so his little serial killing thing should be overlooked.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Esceptico 2 years, 9 months ago
                That may be your “deal” but it is not relevant to my comment. If you want a discussion about being Jewish, WWII or something else, then start a discussion on your selected subject. However, diverting this discussion to your deal is inappropriate. Your being Jewish has no bearing on whether the US should have been involved in WWII. The former is a religious/psychological issue and the latter is a political issue.

                Please let me illustrate this error. Go back a few hundred years. The Pope says the sun revolves around the earth. Galileo Galilei says the earth revolves around the sun and the Pope declares him a heretic. I then say, “I’m a Catholic, so Galilei being a heretic is a deal breaker for me. The sun revolves around earth. Case closed.” I trust you can see the error here without consulting a basic book about thinking such as de Bono or David Kelley. How you were raised is not relevant here and is a logical error.

                Your analogy with Bundy is also flawed because we were not discussing Mencken as a person, but you were discussing Bundy. If Bundy said the world revolves around the sun, I hope you would not discount the statement because you think (properly) Bundy is a monster. His being a monster has no relevance to the statement. The issue in this thread was a statement, not a person.

                As a completely irrelevant aside to the current discussion of Rand’s words via Roark, I did not know (or at least did not remember) Mencken opposed US involvement in WWII. I will have to go see why. I, too, after reading a number of books on war and politics (see, for example, “War is a Lie”) changed my opinion from believing US involvement in WWII was proper to believing the US should not have been involved. My conclusion is the citizens of the US were lied to in order to get us into that war as well as most, if not all, of the other wars in which the US has engaged.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Bethesda-gal 2 years, 9 months ago
                  E., You are welcome to your opinion that you feel my comments are irrelevent to your comment, but I will defend my right to my opinion that my comparison IS relevant. I do not practice a religion, but that would not have mattered in WWII Germany. So, when someone is used for comparison, for illustrative or other purposes, who has a stance on other topics that I deem reprehensible, I think it is justified to discount if not completely dismiss that source. If you feel that is inappropriate we'll have to disagree on that.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by Esceptico 2 years, 9 months ago
                    I did not question your right to an opinion. That, too, is not an issue under discussion. I respectfully suggest you should try harder to remain on topic, and if it is not a topic to you liking, do not try to divert the conversation some place else. I do not “feel” (an emotional reaction) your comments are not appropriate to my initial comment, I think your comments are not appropriate. There is a difference.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo