Bill Belichick is a Real Life Howard Roark from 'The Fountainhead'

[loofasisgeek]

Roark wasn't pursuing 'greater truth', as you said, merely a singleminded desire to design and build according to the shape of the land.

Belichick has a single minded, lifelong desire to win football games, and in his mind he did not cheat (and if you look into the details of the case, I agree with him). Just like Roark, Belichick is being crucified in the media, had to pay a huge financial penalty, but his statement was defiant, and he kept chugging along emotional unscathed due to his supreme confidence in himself well as in his integrity.

Thanks, Maverick. I bet you know more about the book than I do, but I thought Roark (or at least the chick, whose name I forget) spoke of that single minded goal as if it had intrinsic merit and the only "rules" were to honor the "truth" of that intrinisic order of things ... I'm calling that "beauty".

But I'm not seeing the parallel with Belichick and football. You say his single minded lifelong desire to win football games is the parallel... but isn't that different in that there is no intrinisic anything in football? The whole thing is a set of rules... If not, would it be consistent then if Belichick would consider shooting members of the opposite team in order to win? (It's an absolutist sort of doctrine).

... if you can answer, great. If you don't get what I'm asking, f it...

More interesting... you say that you don't think Belichick saw this as cheating and you agree... Yeah, I can see an interpretation that could lead to that, i.e. question whether the tapes would be used during the game, but - and it's a big "but" - Belichick MUST have known that he was playing with interpretations of words yet he didn't ask for a clarification. So he might not have knowingly cheated, but he did know that he didn't know, i.e. it was a calculated risk.

 

[grapedog]

Atlas Shrugged was excellent...I thought The Fountainhead could have been trimmed down a bit. Some of the court room stuff just went on and on and on....

 

[dante828]

Thanks, Maverick. I bet you know more about the book than I do, but I thought Roark (or at least the chick, whose name I forget) spoke of that single minded goal as if it had intrinsic merit and the only "rules" were to honor the "truth" of that intrinisic order of things ... I'm calling that "beauty".

But I'm not seeing the parallel with Belichick and football. You say his single minded lifelong desire to win football games is the parallel... but isn't that different in that there is no intrinisic anything in football? The whole thing is a set of rules... If not, would it be consistent then if Belichick would consider shooting members of the opposite team in order to win? (It's an absolutist sort of doctrine).

... if you can answer, great. If you don't get what I'm asking, f it...

More interesting... you say that you don't think Belichick saw this as cheating and you agree... Yeah, I can see an interpretation that could lead to that, i.e. question whether the tapes would be used during the game, but - and it's a big "but" - Belichick MUST have known that he was playing with interpretations of words yet he didn't ask for a clarification. So he might not have knowingly cheated, but he did know that he didn't know, i.e. it was a calculated risk.

Well, thats the problem with not reading the book. Objectivism holds that there is no such thing as intrinsic value, in anything, and as an Objectivist I agree with that sentiment. I won't bore the board with a long philosophical diatribe (as Objectivists are wont to do) I'll just say that the analogy is a good one. Roark was a person who created his own purpose for his life, he dedicated his life to being a great architect, because he loved it, because he valued it. Belichick is the same in dedicating his life to football because he loves it, because it is a value to him. Both were hated for their single minded passion, both were ultimately successful at what they do, regardless of what everyone else thought of them as people. Its not a perfect analogy, but I think its apt for the times. Roark was hated in the book for his virtues, for being successful, just like Belichick is hated by everyone for being good at was he does, for being successful at it.

By the way, I feel obligated to say that not all Objectivists are bad people. Generally the worst are those who claim to be Objectivists and don't have any idea what Rand was really talking about.

 

[maverick4]

I think the same way that the media and fans hate on Roark, they hate on Belichick. I think it's without cause or merit, and is mostly due to his tunnel personality, jealousy, and spite.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

By the way, I feel obligated to say that not all Objectivists are bad people. Generally the worst are those who claim to be Objectivists and don't have any idea what Rand was really talking about.

I agree with you on that, and think objectivists (like every other group) gets a bad rap due to the outspoken/extreme/misguided ones. Then the faux objectivists confuse things further. The crazies are fun to mock, though.

My wife is a vegetarian and downplays it because, as she'll tell you, many vegetarians ARE bad people.

 

[tombonneau]

I think the same way that the media and fans hate on Roark, they hate on Belichick. I think it's without cause or merit, and is mostly due to his tunnel personality, jealousy, and spite.

And let's not forget that it has a ton to do with the group think that is perpetuated by the Toohey's (i.e. ESPN's) of the world. Many people are perfectly content to have their minds made up for them.

 

[LoveDemPats]

Well, thats the problem with not reading the book. Objectivism holds that there is no such thing as intrinsic value, in anything, and as an Objectivist I agree with that sentiment. I won't bore the board with a long philosophical diatribe (as Objectivists are wont to do) I'll just say that the analogy is a good one. Roark was a person who created his own purpose for his life, he dedicated his life to being a great architect, because he loved it, because he valued it. Belichick is the same in dedicating his life to football because he loves it, because it is a value to him. Both were hated for their single minded passion, both were ultimately successful at what they do, regardless of what everyone else thought of them as people. Its not a perfect analogy, but I think its apt for the times. Roark was hated in the book for his virtues, for being successful, just like Belichick is hated by everyone for being good at was he does, for being successful at it.

By the way, I feel obligated to say that not all Objectivists are bad people. Generally the worst are those who claim to be Objectivists and don't have any idea what Rand was really talking about.

Hey, do you think that Dungy is an Objectivist?

He really is quite a wonderful character.

I can see him giving long lectures about the virtue of serving his fellow man, dedicating his life to santaclaus, and being selfless.

Hey man, Roark was selfish. Belichick is selfish. That is maybe the thing that really gets people worked up. I really love BB. He is the coolest.

 

[maverick4]

Here is another parallel with Howard Roark, and why people hate him:

Belichick created championships teams and won in a way that the media and the average fan couldn't understand. He built teams based on blue collar guys, superior schemes, a team-oriented approach, and outsmarting your enemy rather than overpowering him. This way is foreign to them, they are actually offended by it in a way, they want an entertaining winner who is overpowering with lots of star talent, like in past dynasties. They resent the success of the Patriots, do not give it respect, and thus are quick to crucify something that offends and is foreign to them. It goes against their expectations and worldview for how things are supposed to work.


By the way, the John Clayton = Ellsworth Toohey example is hilarious. He does look like a scrawny, sniveling little twit.