"Anxiety Is The Dizziness of Freedom"

 

Years ago I read the quasi-philosopher Ayn Rand's novel The Fountainhead. It was a thick, curious, cold and bleakly-bizarre book. It is humanist in nature and completely irreligious, and not a book I would recommend reading for a Catholic, but it made me think nonetheless.

Rand's Objectivist philosophy is a strange mix of unfettered capitalism, self-serving egoistic moralism (opposed to altruism of any sort), and staunch individualism anchored in personal integrity. "My philosophy," she wrote, "in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." If one were to transfer it to a political school of thought, I suppose it would be most in line with today's Libertarians. 

From Wiki: 

"Rand's stated goal in writing fiction was to portray her vision of an ideal man. The character of Howard Roark, the protagonist of The Fountainhead, was the first instance where she believed she had achieved this. Roark embodies Rand's egoistic moral ideals, especially the virtues of independence and integrity.

In contrast to the individualistic Roark, Peter Keating is a conformist who bases his choices on what others want. Introduced to the reader as Roark's classmate in architecture school, Keating does not really want to be an architect. He loves painting, but his mother steers him toward architecture instead. In this as in all his decisions, Keating does what others expect rather than follow his personal interests. He becomes a social climber, focused on improving his career and social standing using a combination of personal manipulation and conformity to popular styles. He follows a similar path in his private life: he chooses a loveless marriage to Dominique instead of marrying the woman he loves—who lacks Dominique's beauty and social connections. By middle age, Keating's career is in decline and he is unhappy with his path, but it is too late for him to change."

As I mentioned in previous posts, a good number of guys in my men's group find themselves in this camp (potentially losing jobs due to refusing vax mandate), as well as other friends, and will be facing the fallout in the next few months unless something changes.  It feels almost offensive to say (since it comes across as dispassionate as they themselves are living through this anxiety and personal career cliff), but in my interactions I have been trying to get to the bottom for myself of the "whys" of those who are opposed on this issue. 

If you are faced with the prospect of financial devastation, etc, and you have a seemingly "easy" solution ("Just take the freaking jab already"), what is it that is driving the digging in, i.e. "non-compliance?" Is it purely rooted in what is regarded as an immoral way of testing the vaccine? Is it a kind of boycott of sorts (ie, if we acquiesce to this, what's to stop the tyranny in other future circumstances)? Is it a matter of so-called "stubbornness" of not wanting to be told what one needs to do or not do? Is this a patriotic issue, akin to the British Tea Party? Or is it truly a "pinch of incense" to Caesar, that would betray the deepest part of one's self were they to do so (vaccinate)? Or some/all of the above?

It's a bit lengthy for a blog post, but I thought the plot from The Fountainhead had some themes that possess a curious parallel as it regards to those resisting the vaccine mandate today, since I think many of those "standing alone" to make these decisions may shadow the protagonist in this novel. 

"In early 1922, Howard Roark is expelled from the architecture department of the Stanton Institute of Technology because he has not adhered to the school's preference for historical convention in building design. Roark goes to New York City and gets a job with Henry Cameron. Cameron was once a renowned architect, but now gets few commissions. In the meantime, Roark's popular, but vacuous, fellow student and housemate Peter Keating (whom Roark sometimes helped with projects) graduates with high honors. He too moves to New York, where he has been offered a position with the prestigious architecture firm, Francon & Heyer. Keating ingratiates himself with Guy Francon and works to remove rivals among his coworkers. After Francon's partner, Lucius Heyer, suffers a fatal stroke brought on by Keating's antagonism, Francon chooses Keating to replace him. Meanwhile, Roark and Cameron create inspired work, but struggle financially.

After Cameron retires, Keating hires Roark, whom Francon soon fires for refusing to design a building in the classical style. Roark works briefly at another firm, then opens his own office but has trouble finding clients and closes it down. He gets a job in a granite quarry owned by Francon. There he meets Francon's daughter Dominique, a columnist for The New York Banner, while she is staying at her family's estate nearby. 

Ellsworth M. Toohey, who writes a popular architecture column in the Banner, is an outspoken socialist who shapes public opinion through his column and a circle of influential associates. Toohey sets out to destroy Roark through a smear campaign. He recommends Roark to Hopton Stoddard, a wealthy acquaintance who wants to build a Temple of the Human Spirit. Roark's unusual design includes a nude statue modeled on Dominique; Toohey persuades Stoddard to sue Roark for malpractice. Toohey and several architects (including Keating) testify at the trial that Roark is incompetent as an architect due to his rejection of historical styles. Dominique also argues for the prosecution in tones that can be interpreted to be speaking more in Roark's defense than for the plaintiff, but he loses the case. Dominique decides that since she cannot have the world she wants, in which men like Roark are recognized for their greatness, she will live entirely in the world she has, which shuns Roark and praises Keating. She marries Keating and turns herself over to him, doing and saying whatever he wants, and actively persuading potential clients to hire him instead of Roark.

To win Keating a prestigious commission offered by Gail Wynand, the owner and editor-in-chief of the Banner, Dominique agrees to sleep with Wynand. Wynand is so strongly attracted to Dominique that he pays Keating to divorce her, after which Wynand and Dominique are married. Wanting to build a home for himself and his new wife, Wynand discovers that Roark designed every building he likes and so hires him. Roark and Wynand become close friends; Wynand is unaware of Roark's past relationship with Dominique.

Washed up and out of the public eye, Keating pleads with Toohey to use his influence to get the commission for the much-sought-after Cortlandt housing project. Keating knows his most successful projects were aided by Roark, so he asks for Roark's help in designing Cortlandt. Roark agrees in exchange for complete anonymity and Keating's promise that it will be built exactly as designed. After taking a long vacation with Wynand, Roark returns to find that Keating was not able to prevent major changes from being made in Cortlandt's construction. Roark dynamites the project to prevent the subversion of his vision.

Roark is arrested and his action is widely condemned, but Wynand decides to use his papers to defend his friend. This unpopular stance hurts the circulation of his newspapers, and Wynand's employees go on strike after Wynand dismisses Toohey for disobeying him and criticizing Roark. Faced with the prospect of closing the paper, Wynand gives in and publishes a denunciation of Roark. At his trial, Roark makes a lengthy speech about the value of ego and integrity, and he is found not guilty. Dominique leaves Wynand for Roark. Wynand, who has betrayed his own values by attacking Roark, finally grasps the nature of the power he thought he held. He shuts down the Banner and commissions a final building from Roark, a skyscraper that will serve as a monument to human achievement. Eighteen months later, the Wynand Building is under construction. Dominique, now Roark's wife, enters the site to meet him atop its steel framework."

It was a strange twist of existential fate that hinged on the hero and protagonist (Roark) being unflinchingly true to his ideals (expressed in architecture), as a man of integrity as he sees it, despite the hurdles and financial difficulties and pressures to betray those ideals. The antagonist (Keating), conversely, compromises, conforms, and while it seems to benefit him initially, he eventually is the one with nothing to show for his life. 

This is a kind of existential scenario for many, to face the question of "what do I really believe? What am I willing to suffer for?" In matters of faith, these are largely settled questions for me. But in ancillary issues--politics, personal freedom, patriotism, science and medicine--I have much more that I am unsure of. 

On the matter of integrity and ideology, I also thought about a curious scenario in which one might desire to personally benefit from taking the vaccine (assuming, that is, it is beneficial on a cost/benefit viz a viz risk scale) but be opposed ideologically to government overreach (ie, mandates) and so on the grounds of integrity, choose not to take it on principled grounds (ie, the 'boycott' approach). That is, the weight of participating and aiding tyranny is heavier than the personal benefit of vaccination. Of course, this is a rare scenario, and maybe there is some truth to Rand's contention that we all ultimately act out of self-interest and motivated by individualism. Most people, with rare exception when push comes to shove, just do what is best for themselves. 

Last year I "abetted" if you will someone who happened to be going to the January 6 rally at the Capitol in the sense that I coordinated a place to stay, as they were coming from multiple states away. Of course, I didn't know what was actually going to happen at that event, and I largely don't do crowds or political activism. I wasn't there, but these people I knew went, and made personal sacrifices to do so. Was this a good thing? Is this what patriots do? I mentioned the Boston Tea Party...is it something like that? But then there was that bizarre Q'anon shaman guy, and the deaths, and the storming (whether or not that was intended), and it becomes much harder to stand behind. Makes you question things. Is this what 'resisting tyranny' looks like? Or am I just weak in nature for not wanting to have anything to do with such an event? 

I admitted to my buddy (facing potential loss of employment for refusing the mandate) that while I was not envious of his particular situation, if nothing else I was somewhat envious of his surety that he was in the right on the matter and willing to go all the way in it. It is not easy to live true to one's ideals without betraying them. As Kierkegaard said, "Anxiety is the dizziness of freedom." 

I still haven't quite figured out what it is that motivates my buddy and others (and it may be different for different people) on this particular matter of resistance, but to the degree that they are being true to their conscience, living with integrity, and paying the price, they have my respect.