one thing I would like to know is how ayn rand arrives at the conclusion that sacrificing yourself for others is evil (as she said in an old interview). I understand the "live and let live principle" where you can't sacrifice others for yourself (like stalin for example). But why would self sacrifice be such an evil thing? it doesn't affect me if someone sacrifices themselves (not that i want them to), it only affects me if they sacrifice me for themselves.
@Chaaarge - I'll give it a shot...to do a thing in which you are not in support of would be evil since it is contrary to your own self preservation. However, a soldier falling on a grenade to save his fellow soldiers would not be contrary since it usually is a decision that men make in the heat of battle. "Doing for others" to make yourself feel good, is a benefit that only an individual can decide. Charity is a perfect example of this, but it is not "Altruism". Something like that : )
I'm torn. On one hand, I agree, that it's wrong to be coerced and pressured to sacrifice one's self for the so-called "greater good" and to become part of a flock - we do have a right to live, to be ourselves, to use our own minds. But I also think that this kind of thinking leads to an overly divisionistic society built on distrust and alienation. We are all connected, and to deny that is foolishnish. We should have a choice, but why NOT choose to help others if we can?
@Ashiman12 Why not help others if we can? No reason at all. But it must be by free choice not by yoke. We use to be wiser and actually care more for others in the past. Now we take the lazy way and foolishly let others care for others, using force. And their promise of this extra "security" only costs our liberty.
@Ashiman12 The best way to help others in this world is by letting them be free and independent and give them the freedom to practice their independence in a moral and respectable way. Like Howard Roark said in the book: "Don't work for my happiness, instead, show me yours, and that will give me the courage for mine."
@312howard There's something to be said for letting people be independent. But it's easy to take that thinking and make it into an excuse to disregard others, leading down a path of apathy that's already done enough harm to our society. Obviously we shouldn't force ourselves into people's lives if we aren't welcome, and we can't hold them upright if they're unwilling to stand on their own, but we should never withhold a helping hand just because offering it is inconveniant.
@Ashiman12 The point to me is that we must have the choice to aid others. We should never be forced to do so. If it is YOUR choice to help a particular individual then you should do so. True freedom is making our own choices as we see fit and NOT infringing on others right to do the same, respecting their lives & property.
When Roark builds a building up in the middle of nowhere, by himself, with his bare hands, I will let him have total control over it. But if he uses other people to build it, and it's construction affects other people, they should have a say over it too.
Im torn between the two. TKAM Speech is excellent, but I don't know. I feel like Finch's speech is appealing to a common modern notion, whereas roark is making a powerful argument against all common notions. I sort of enjoy this one more
The moral of the story isn't much different from any other existentialist book like "The Stranger," why all the hype about Rand?
You have to walk the line because living in a populated world means you have to survive but in a context related to others. The innovations he lists were only made possible by the sharing of discoveries, contributing to a field. Some get intrinsic pleasure from work and no pleasure from its fruits.
Also, the "conquest of nature" is what killed off the natives here.
@theseanze Way to miss the point of individualism. Any individualist rejects the notion of using force against others just as much as he rejects force being used against himself. The conquest of nature means the goal of bettering one's self in relationship to nature/the rest of the world and society for his own pleasure and dignity.
@pinkkfloydd -- Well an "objectivist" might object to the use of force against others, not necessarily an individualist. Bettering yourself in relationship to the world for your own pleasure and dignity sounds exactly like the colonial spirit. The whole notion of dignity relies on an idea of undignified people and implies a separation of the worthy and unworthy. The sympathies in her philosophy are based on being nice to those like you, and to U.S. colonists natives and blacks weren't people.
Ayn Rand was a Hollywood screenwriter, and this is the best she can do? This stilted pretentious boring Hollywood B picture dialogue? Are people so ignorant that they cannot finally realize that Ayn Rand was a pseudointellectual?
@pacifiedfools Perhaps, but Nietzsche never advocated much more than simply complaining about it. At least Rand imbued her characters with the ability to act on their childish convictions!
btw- her argument is an eloquent work of art expressing the woes & contradictions of altruism & the like. This is especially evident in Howard Roark's fabulous speech
It is those who think for the collective that do so for their own selfish reasonings, and the same is true of those who only think of themselves. Look at the true example Jesus set for us. To do all things for the love of all including ourselves. To serve and be served. This theory of Ayn Rand is so twisted. No one gains, all lose. Only in the Way of Jesus Christ our Creator will anyone be able to win and truly live in peace with each other.
@swu880 Selfishness is with the thought of the consequence benefiting them whose thought or action it is and no care of the consequence of it on others, unless it benefit the originator of such thought and action. The fruit of selfishness is it's consequence.
i meant in the sense of moral consequence- saying someone is selfish does not make him moral or immoral. In fact, it actually tends to say he is moral- since firstly he has something to care about(the self), secondly he IS CARING for his self
now, it is important to reclarify & distinguish the true meaning of selfish from destructive, whimsical & emotional behavior. for example, a thief who robs a store clerk of his store is not being selfish
Such use of brute force is not selfish as it does NOT care FOR one's self in a rational sense. If he is any bit rational, he would realize and bar himself from use of brute force b/c any use of brute force voids any sanction on his own life & rights.
Selfish is caring for oneself. In terms of others, the effect & consequence on others or by others is of no concern to a truly selfish man- that is moral. What this means & u have to b very careful so that u can understand the true meanin
meaning, is that caring & valuing oneself is the first & foremost primary function of life- it is the defining attribute of life. Failure to care for oneself is the anti-life & therefore anti-moral.
The whole topic of objectivism is set on the concept of individualism which the founding fathers built the country on. It is very deep & subtle yet very explicit & beautiful. To understand it requires spending a couple hours studying the philosophy, history & backgrounds
Ayn Rand, u must understand, developed or more like completed, the idea of individualism in a practical sense. After living in one of the most collectivist societies (Soviet union), she understood clearly the horrors & EVILS of the altruistic kantian collectivist mindset. I encourage u to first watch the Fountainhead- the entire film. Try to delve into Atlas shrugged & also look into the terms & concepts expressed in objectivism before u lay claim to any criticism
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@swu880-The mindset was not altruistic for all, it was the brainwashing of the government for the few to receive from the many. This is invariably where selfishness leads and the world we live in has made that evident. Being one with Christ is thinking of and loving others as you do yourself, this would be a selfish endeavor also, it cannot be called altruistic. Since we are Christ's Body, what He did on the cross was a selfish act by this definition. This definition makes love selfish. Amen.
Is inheritance mooching to you? A capitalist society gives the wealth the ability for their children to inherit wealth. This is uniquely American. Wealth is freedom. Are you telling parents their children may not inherit wealth and freedom? What if that child is disabled? Are they expendable? They have money.
Collectivism. Of course man has a right to exist if they do not benefit society. Congress keeps extending jobless benefits. Death panels will of course judge us based on "societal benefit" and "societal desirablilty". Government wants us to spread the wealth and waste money on health insurance not health services of our own choosing.
One thing that should be noticed is the judge doing his job in the court. This should give you an idea of how long ago it was when judges didn't legislate from the bench, but followed their constitutional duties.
An angry mob hasn't got any brains. The Shelter The Twilight Zone. The collectivists see only groups and never individuals. They want diversity and affirmative action.
@stayjit1 Live in a society where productive work is rewarded, not punished? Live in a society where the moochers and looters have no place, no way to force me to waste my life serving them? Hell yeah.
This movie is so relevant in the age of Obama. Obama the collectivist aides with the prosecution. To exist man must serve society. We must defend individualism. This movie shows us injustice and a man who defends individualism and entrepreneurship.
Howard Roark is an ethical egoist mr toxic. not an egoist but an egoist in the sense that he follows morals that coincide with his selfintrest. mr roark had his property used against his will and selfintrest so thats why he shits on the other suits. an event like haiti however was a natures way of mass murder. it is in all true egoist self interest to buy a dime sack next time and say, nah man this ten is going to haiti. my nigga in bambardopolis wrote me. its bad brah
Damn right. Who says that charity is moral or noble? Who says that self sacrifice for the greater good is moral. It most assuredly is not. So why must endure news programming proclaiming that we care about Haiti?
It is prohibited to mix Ayn Rand's objective philosophy with religion, because objectivism rests on metaphysics. I suggest that anyone reads "Atlas Shrugged". It's a very in-depth, and detailed look at how Objectivism works, and is the only way that works for man. But, don't try to mix water and electricity.
While Ayn Rand wrote the screenplay to this film (and permitted no modifications, a la Roark), the book, at about the midpoint, features another interesting courtroom trial (a lawsuit omitted from the film), in which Dominique "testifies" against Roark (and he loses).
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Now I find out that he wasn't paid for his work, that instead he made some kind of ridiculous deal that could not be honoured - a silly tilting at windmills type of deal... that's his problem. This is still pro-terrorist. The rights of the residents to balconies is more important particularly as this is what he owners of the property decide...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This movie promotes terrorism.
Roark was paid for his work... as long as he was making money, he had to serve those who paid him. So is Rand suggesting that workers stop working or destroy the office or destroy the products of the company?
Read "Atlas Shrugged"! Ayn Rand explains very clearly about her philosophy about Objectivism. Lots going on in the book, so you gotta be on your toes!
Cooper's performance was not nearly as good as it could've been in this scene. Roark was a man who passionately believed in all that he said, he was very sure of himself, but that does NOT mean he talked like a cold man from queue cards. To be quite honest, this performance wasn't nearly as good as it could've been but acceptable nonetheless.
how the f*** can anyone worth a shit support socialism??? Progressivism is a sickening disease of the brain and soul.
Socialism: supported by people who have nothing & are willing to share it with others and also by elites who enact oppressive the rules never intending to obey them.
Man I love this part of Fountainhead. I still argue with people that this case was about vandalism of government property vs vandalism of Roark's work
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
So much said here about the evils of collective acts, even so far as quoting the Constitution if the United States to support objectivism.Yet all of this is under the name of the United States of America; a union of states. In other words a collective.
flatblackrose - A point that shows some thought but erroneous none the less. Objectivism has no problem with a society united under certain morals or ideals as long as they promote reason, logic and individual freedom. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I do not consider myself an objectivist but Rand was one of the most brilliant thinkers in human history and I credit much of my intellect to her. Do not be so quick to overlook her or her work.
"I solemly ask of any man who hears this case...to let his own mind pronounce a verdict upon it."
Ironic. The D.A. doesn't realize that, by asking the jury to use their MINDS, he's unwittingly handed the case to Roark!
I love Roark's speech. He's very spot on with every point. I love how Rand was able to work into the script the most essectial points of the book's speech, without giving it a "choppy" feel!
Because her arguments are very weak, and not based in reality. Also philosophy is not a required course in America, and if it was (or if it's an elective) there are many more philosophers who are much more important, and whose arguments are better than her, Hyack for example.
No. It would be nice if everyone would choose to be aquainted with Objectivism. The world would be a much different place. However, Objectivism is not meant to be forced on anyone.
That this is a product of the 50's,makes it all the more relevant.We are in a new age of McCarthyism.A world where dissent and indepndence are percieved as being treasonous and criminal.The neocon goal is to make us the biggest collectivism.A veritable beehive or ant farm.Individualists are the wrench in their gears.Individualists ruin the game they're playing.
Sometimes, when I'm alone at night, I take bong hits while chanting, "I am not a number, I am a collective of cells that, if bent the right way, could surely make at least a number 1. Just like in Sesame Street!"
collectivism is another word for control. they change the terms coined to lead others astray from what a common word which could have been understood from the onset. none of this crap is new. ayan rand writer, re; Rand corporation.
No. She and Bill Buckley were completely on the same page in terms of their loathing of anything collectivist. Why else would she create a character like Howard Roark? Roark is Rand, a mouthpiece for her philosopy, Objectivism, which touts capitalism as a panacea for the ills of society. She hated socialism, communism and, for that matter, religion, which when practiced according to its stated tenets, is altruistic. How could you miss this if you've actually heard "many of her talks".
I saw all of this movie 30 years ago and I don't even remember this scene. However, I remember at the time I was impressed with the story line and if I could have clicked it into my favorites I certainly would have done exactly that. I agree, this has nothing to do with capitalism or communism, it's individualism vs mobocracy. And today that means Kucinich, Gravel & Paul vs Corporatism = failed election attempts. What a shame! All 3 get 5* for going against the Empire's mission.
I agree. It's the same way that Orwell's critiques of communism can be appled equally to the corporate fascism of today. Fascism and totalitarianism at their root are both systems that, in practice, subjugate the individual to the ends of elites who view them as little more than chattel. The way things are set up now, it's increasingly difficult for individuals to make a living without serving one huge corporation or another.
Jeffersonian Democracy is based on this same principal - the power of the individual vs. the power of corporations. And Jefferson favored the individual. Bush favors the corporati (corporate mobsters). We must restore this principal to prevent mobocracies from destroying individualism.
A great speech, this was from the time where Hollywood wasnt unter complet control from some little men who think that what this man is talking about should be destroyed. Sinds the takeover, great movies like these are no longer produced. Incredible. The creative mind is unique to all, you do not have to be an architect or a artist, everybody can use his mind to create. That is what he is saying. A little paper (diploma) does not define who you are!
Wrong, this is not about capitalism against communism. It is about the individual against the collective. Capitalism does not represent the individual. You are looking at this from your biased mind. Capitalism is another form of communism, the same people are behind it. Study the hegel principle and social engeneering of populations to see why.
Well if this is the nature of achievement, then this architect should accept his fate as the nature of his achievement. If something has an inherent nature you will have the most extreme uphill battle to fight it. I guess it's his right to try, but don't be shocked or even disappointed if you loose.
Like If pick a snake up by its tail, should I be shocked if it bites me?
Yeah, in real life blowing up a building would most def. result in jail time. But aside from all that, the message is true, not based on law of man but law of nature. Purity does not exist in group think. It's pure, in all things, but only accessible once noticed within self.
Thus, the character Roark in this movie is expressing the truth as things are rationally. He's in touch with his own nature, thus he is in touch with his own nature. He couldn't possibly explain such a thing to a group without coming off as condescending, because it shakes the very foundation "group think" sits on.
This has been flagged as spam show
society is not entitled to the entrepreneur
society is rewarded with entrepreneurs by increasing personal freedom
TheBlitz1 4 weeks ago
I'm a fan of Ayn Rand, but to those denouncing charity, consider this...
Charity is injurious unless it helps the recipient to become independent of it.
-John D. Rockefeller
AnubisEye009 2 months ago
one thing I would like to know is how ayn rand arrives at the conclusion that sacrificing yourself for others is evil (as she said in an old interview). I understand the "live and let live principle" where you can't sacrifice others for yourself (like stalin for example). But why would self sacrifice be such an evil thing? it doesn't affect me if someone sacrifices themselves (not that i want them to), it only affects me if they sacrifice me for themselves.
Chaaarge 7 months ago
@Chaaarge - I'll give it a shot...to do a thing in which you are not in support of would be evil since it is contrary to your own self preservation. However, a soldier falling on a grenade to save his fellow soldiers would not be contrary since it usually is a decision that men make in the heat of battle. "Doing for others" to make yourself feel good, is a benefit that only an individual can decide. Charity is a perfect example of this, but it is not "Altruism". Something like that : )
lladnarg 6 months ago
I'm torn. On one hand, I agree, that it's wrong to be coerced and pressured to sacrifice one's self for the so-called "greater good" and to become part of a flock - we do have a right to live, to be ourselves, to use our own minds. But I also think that this kind of thinking leads to an overly divisionistic society built on distrust and alienation. We are all connected, and to deny that is foolishnish. We should have a choice, but why NOT choose to help others if we can?
Ashiman12 8 months ago
@Ashiman12 Why not help others if we can? No reason at all. But it must be by free choice not by yoke. We use to be wiser and actually care more for others in the past. Now we take the lazy way and foolishly let others care for others, using force. And their promise of this extra "security" only costs our liberty.
Solverwiz 8 months ago 2
@Solverwiz I agree, we should be free to make the choice. Goodness is not goodness if we don't have the choice to do harm.
Ashiman12 8 months ago 2
@Ashiman12 The best way to help others in this world is by letting them be free and independent and give them the freedom to practice their independence in a moral and respectable way. Like Howard Roark said in the book: "Don't work for my happiness, instead, show me yours, and that will give me the courage for mine."
312howard 8 months ago 7
@312howard There's something to be said for letting people be independent. But it's easy to take that thinking and make it into an excuse to disregard others, leading down a path of apathy that's already done enough harm to our society. Obviously we shouldn't force ourselves into people's lives if we aren't welcome, and we can't hold them upright if they're unwilling to stand on their own, but we should never withhold a helping hand just because offering it is inconveniant.
Ashiman12 7 months ago
@Ashiman12 The point to me is that we must have the choice to aid others. We should never be forced to do so. If it is YOUR choice to help a particular individual then you should do so. True freedom is making our own choices as we see fit and NOT infringing on others right to do the same, respecting their lives & property.
RedTulie1 7 months ago
When Roark builds a building up in the middle of nowhere, by himself, with his bare hands, I will let him have total control over it. But if he uses other people to build it, and it's construction affects other people, they should have a say over it too.
00maharum00ma 11 months ago
penis
cronack 11 months ago
The best courtroom speech ever put into a movie. PERIOD.
MrDeppness 1 year ago 6
@MrDeppness no, to kill a mockingbird is.
loz1023 1 year ago
@loz1023
Im torn between the two. TKAM Speech is excellent, but I don't know. I feel like Finch's speech is appealing to a common modern notion, whereas roark is making a powerful argument against all common notions. I sort of enjoy this one more
nappy1020 9 months ago
Gary Cooper, at his most iconic...
tuxguys 1 year ago
bravo
coraline12341 1 year ago
The moral of the story isn't much different from any other existentialist book like "The Stranger," why all the hype about Rand?
You have to walk the line because living in a populated world means you have to survive but in a context related to others. The innovations he lists were only made possible by the sharing of discoveries, contributing to a field. Some get intrinsic pleasure from work and no pleasure from its fruits.
Also, the "conquest of nature" is what killed off the natives here.
theseanze 1 year ago
@theseanze Way to miss the point of individualism. Any individualist rejects the notion of using force against others just as much as he rejects force being used against himself. The conquest of nature means the goal of bettering one's self in relationship to nature/the rest of the world and society for his own pleasure and dignity.
pinkkfloydd 1 year ago
@pinkkfloydd -- Well an "objectivist" might object to the use of force against others, not necessarily an individualist. Bettering yourself in relationship to the world for your own pleasure and dignity sounds exactly like the colonial spirit. The whole notion of dignity relies on an idea of undignified people and implies a separation of the worthy and unworthy. The sympathies in her philosophy are based on being nice to those like you, and to U.S. colonists natives and blacks weren't people.
theseanze 1 year ago
The creator and the paracite.
MultiSimplified 1 year ago
The creater and the paracite.
MultiSimplified 1 year ago
AWESOME..
TheSovereignRock 1 year ago
What twaddle!
eddyrapide 1 year ago
Ayn Rand was a Hollywood screenwriter, and this is the best she can do? This stilted pretentious boring Hollywood B picture dialogue? Are people so ignorant that they cannot finally realize that Ayn Rand was a pseudointellectual?
asantopietro1 1 year ago
@asantopietro1 even if that was the case, she stole most of her ideas from nietzsche who wasn't one. you're using ad hom
xainish 1 year ago
@asantopietro1 If you think you can do better or there is better out there, then there is a bit more Rand in you than you'll probably care to admit.
yammyspeed13 1 year ago
@asantopietro1 Actually, Ayn Rand was Friedrich Nietzsche's enlightened corpse. The more you know.
proberush 1 year ago
@proberush How can you say that? She posited that reality was objective, but Nietzsche claimed that reality was inherently subjective.
pacifiedfools 11 months ago
@pacifiedfools Perhaps, but Nietzsche never advocated much more than simply complaining about it. At least Rand imbued her characters with the ability to act on their childish convictions!
proberush 11 months ago
Ayn Rand changed my life too. What a wonderful human being she was.
yamr1tec 1 year ago
@yamr1tec
And quite fat one too
NathanRomml 1 year ago
in tears.. god what have we become.....
jbigga 1 year ago
btw- her argument is an eloquent work of art expressing the woes & contradictions of altruism & the like. This is especially evident in Howard Roark's fabulous speech
swu880 1 year ago
Down with copyright laws! Search: "I chose the apple" for my music video also saying STUFF IT OLD TIME RELIGION AND STATE.
carolmooresongs 1 year ago
It is those who think for the collective that do so for their own selfish reasonings, and the same is true of those who only think of themselves. Look at the true example Jesus set for us. To do all things for the love of all including ourselves. To serve and be served. This theory of Ayn Rand is so twisted. No one gains, all lose. Only in the Way of Jesus Christ our Creator will anyone be able to win and truly live in peace with each other.
followjesusonly1 1 year ago
@followjesusonly1
That is not being selfish- selfish is thinking FOR one's self- not for someone/something else
selfishness is the definition of the individual & every living being and says nothing of the consequence.
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 Selfishness is with the thought of the consequence benefiting them whose thought or action it is and no care of the consequence of it on others, unless it benefit the originator of such thought and action. The fruit of selfishness is it's consequence.
followjesusonly1 1 year ago
@followjesusonly1
i meant in the sense of moral consequence- saying someone is selfish does not make him moral or immoral. In fact, it actually tends to say he is moral- since firstly he has something to care about(the self), secondly he IS CARING for his self
now, it is important to reclarify & distinguish the true meaning of selfish from destructive, whimsical & emotional behavior. for example, a thief who robs a store clerk of his store is not being selfish
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880
Such use of brute force is not selfish as it does NOT care FOR one's self in a rational sense. If he is any bit rational, he would realize and bar himself from use of brute force b/c any use of brute force voids any sanction on his own life & rights.
Selfish is caring for oneself. In terms of others, the effect & consequence on others or by others is of no concern to a truly selfish man- that is moral. What this means & u have to b very careful so that u can understand the true meanin
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880
meaning, is that caring & valuing oneself is the first & foremost primary function of life- it is the defining attribute of life. Failure to care for oneself is the anti-life & therefore anti-moral.
The whole topic of objectivism is set on the concept of individualism which the founding fathers built the country on. It is very deep & subtle yet very explicit & beautiful. To understand it requires spending a couple hours studying the philosophy, history & backgrounds
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880
Ayn Rand, u must understand, developed or more like completed, the idea of individualism in a practical sense. After living in one of the most collectivist societies (Soviet union), she understood clearly the horrors & EVILS of the altruistic kantian collectivist mindset. I encourage u to first watch the Fountainhead- the entire film. Try to delve into Atlas shrugged & also look into the terms & concepts expressed in objectivism before u lay claim to any criticism
swu880 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@swu880-The mindset was not altruistic for all, it was the brainwashing of the government for the few to receive from the many. This is invariably where selfishness leads and the world we live in has made that evident. Being one with Christ is thinking of and loving others as you do yourself, this would be a selfish endeavor also, it cannot be called altruistic. Since we are Christ's Body, what He did on the cross was a selfish act by this definition. This definition makes love selfish. Amen.
followjesusonly1 1 year ago
ahh, but I only have one question to ask... cafepress slash unbrfool.447865862
MrNoosphere 1 year ago
Is inheritance mooching to you? A capitalist society gives the wealth the ability for their children to inherit wealth. This is uniquely American. Wealth is freedom. Are you telling parents their children may not inherit wealth and freedom? What if that child is disabled? Are they expendable? They have money.
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
Collectivism. Of course man has a right to exist if they do not benefit society. Congress keeps extending jobless benefits. Death panels will of course judge us based on "societal benefit" and "societal desirablilty". Government wants us to spread the wealth and waste money on health insurance not health services of our own choosing.
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
One thing that should be noticed is the judge doing his job in the court. This should give you an idea of how long ago it was when judges didn't legislate from the bench, but followed their constitutional duties.
sonrouge 1 year ago
Prove it that Ayn Rand was part of the Illuminati..
johnwrogers 1 year ago
Hackneyed rubbish.
DgoSteve 1 year ago
@DgoSteve
Christians are dumb
Turan123 1 year ago
Ayn Rand was an Illuminati hack.
GhostofCliffGullett 1 year ago
We is just Is acting in unison.
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
An angry mob hasn't got any brains. The Shelter The Twilight Zone. The collectivists see only groups and never individuals. They want diversity and affirmative action.
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
Hmmmm, read a little more Rand before you toss this movie in with Obama. Do you really want to live in Ayn Rand's Utopia ?
stayjit1 1 year ago
@stayjit1 Live in a society where productive work is rewarded, not punished? Live in a society where the moochers and looters have no place, no way to force me to waste my life serving them? Hell yeah.
sonrouge 1 year ago 2
This movie is so relevant in the age of Obama. Obama the collectivist aides with the prosecution. To exist man must serve society. We must defend individualism. This movie shows us injustice and a man who defends individualism and entrepreneurship.
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago 3
@ToxicOdiousOne "We" instead of "I"? Are you fighting for individualism or collectivism?
tsuneonyc 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
nice :)
please check out my videos too
sasablublu 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
An AWFUL movie in which a far too old Cooper was BADLY miscast. Thankfully he got the real life ending he deserved.
FrankClanton 1 year ago
Howard Roark is an ethical egoist mr toxic. not an egoist but an egoist in the sense that he follows morals that coincide with his selfintrest. mr roark had his property used against his will and selfintrest so thats why he shits on the other suits. an event like haiti however was a natures way of mass murder. it is in all true egoist self interest to buy a dime sack next time and say, nah man this ten is going to haiti. my nigga in bambardopolis wrote me. its bad brah
tcslitz 2 years ago
Spot on, tcslitz...
edsanville 1 year ago
Damn right. Who says that charity is moral or noble? Who says that self sacrifice for the greater good is moral. It most assuredly is not. So why must endure news programming proclaiming that we care about Haiti?
ToxicOdiousOne 2 years ago 3
After three sign ons I still get
black screen saying
" an error occured, try again later"
another trick by the censor squad?
sophiah88 2 years ago
@sophiah88 or...an error.
AashiquiTheri 1 year ago
Hallo !
Ich freue mich, dass auch du mein Ebook: Angela Merkels Sünden auf BookRix gut findest.
Es hat es bei BookRix inzwischen auf Platz 3 der am meisten gelesenen Bücher - insgesamt - geschafft !
Danke !
Ludwig
kownesse 2 years ago
how it ends ? :)
claudi8875 2 years ago
It is prohibited to mix Ayn Rand's objective philosophy with religion, because objectivism rests on metaphysics. I suggest that anyone reads "Atlas Shrugged". It's a very in-depth, and detailed look at how Objectivism works, and is the only way that works for man. But, don't try to mix water and electricity.
hyancinth70 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
he isnt in the witness stand...and in swearing to tell the truth/swore/yet jesus said swear no oaths[matt5;33-48/23;16-25
its not mans fire..that lifts darkness from the earth..but the sun..see gods light sustaining life
-those who took new steps..had gods creation..to work with god/given logic/mind
-killing a living seed/to eat...killing a living tree to build/create..their house
-unborrowed/vision...lol
..all man/'great-creators'..used gods dusts
-do not presume/what promted god
oneundergod 2 years ago
he isnt in the witness stand...and in swearing to tell the truth/swore/yet jesus said swear no oaths[matt5;33-48/23;16-25
its not mans fire..that lifts darkness from the earth..but the sun..see gods light sustaining life
-those who took new steps..had gods creation..to work with god/given logic/mind
-killing a living seed/to eat...killing a living tree to build/create..their house
-unborrowed/vision...lol
..all man/'great-creators'..used gods dusts
-do not presume/what promted god
oneundergod 2 years ago
its sad that so many deceptions are included..[about god]..we may well presume..gods reasons..but the fact is god sustains all living
god is that nature/nsatural..that does it all..god dosnt destroy...he sustains life
we honour god ..by respecting all life/living..death blasphemes god..yet even after death life goes on
we have inherant rights..[as co-creators...it is undeniable...
god made the tree grow..but it was man that made its timber into a house
oneundergod 2 years ago
While Ayn Rand wrote the screenplay to this film (and permitted no modifications, a la Roark), the book, at about the midpoint, features another interesting courtroom trial (a lawsuit omitted from the film), in which Dominique "testifies" against Roark (and he loses).
xalambalax 2 years ago
the book should stay a book. howard roark can't be anything but genuine and there is no actor skilled enough to play his part accurately.
bleemerpoop 2 years ago
Fahnder werden zu kleinen Fischen geschickt - um die Großen zu decken.
Bei unserer Nachbarin (Putzfrau) war letztes Jahr das FA zuhause, weil sie eine Schenkung der Oma nicht angegeben hatte aus Unwissenheit.
Das Prinzip zieht sich durch alle Bereiche unseres Lebens durch.
fastiglioso 2 years ago
Two words: Self-ownership.
Those two words resonated in every single page of Rand's work, and in every syllable she uttered.
If you do not own yourself or the fruits of your labor, you are relegated from a sovereign to a slave.
AntiSCO 2 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Now I find out that he wasn't paid for his work, that instead he made some kind of ridiculous deal that could not be honoured - a silly tilting at windmills type of deal... that's his problem. This is still pro-terrorist. The rights of the residents to balconies is more important particularly as this is what he owners of the property decide...
lordhighexecutioner 2 years ago
Dude, in all sympathy, read the book
megafr8nk 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This movie promotes terrorism.
Roark was paid for his work... as long as he was making money, he had to serve those who paid him. So is Rand suggesting that workers stop working or destroy the office or destroy the products of the company?
lordhighexecutioner 2 years ago
You have no idea how much I love this speech! 5 stars! Peace :-)
jerami101 2 years ago 21
@jerami101
Read "Atlas Shrugged"! Ayn Rand explains very clearly about her philosophy about Objectivism. Lots going on in the book, so you gotta be on your toes!
hyancinth70 2 years ago
Thanks! It's on my list.
jerami101 2 years ago
Comment removed
jerami101 2 years ago
A wooden performance by Cooper.
PeterFirthFan 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Will be reporting you under your new sock puppet.
NobamaRules4never 2 years ago
What for? For telling the truth - that Cooper was just a wooden, boring actor?
PeterFirthFan 2 years ago
Cooper's performance was not nearly as good as it could've been in this scene. Roark was a man who passionately believed in all that he said, he was very sure of himself, but that does NOT mean he talked like a cold man from queue cards. To be quite honest, this performance wasn't nearly as good as it could've been but acceptable nonetheless.
moozoonsii 2 years ago
He was also too old for the part.
PeterFirthFan 2 years ago
I just watched the DVD last night.....in the making of this they mention Cooper didn't like the way this came out too.
AJAX556 2 years ago
No for being a boring sockpuppet that needs to be taken down. And your fall will be soon. "Wooden," must be talking about your non talented self!
jimymax58 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Gary Cooper got the ending he deserved, the abortionist.
PeterFirthFan 2 years ago
Oh wow such a well thought out reply! Ever think of taking your show on the road, sockpuppet?
jimymax58 2 years ago
"The issue which you decide is the crucial issue of our age: Has man any right to exist if he refuses to serve society?"
Am I missing something? Seems like the issue before the jury is whether or not it's okay to blow up a fucking building.
bradnealip 2 years ago
Well this made my favorites
vital138 2 years ago 3
how the f*** can anyone worth a shit support socialism??? Progressivism is a sickening disease of the brain and soul.
Socialism: supported by people who have nothing & are willing to share it with others and also by elites who enact oppressive the rules never intending to obey them.
ugotpimp 2 years ago
Socialism= Slaves.....You can not have a true socialism without suppression of freedom
frio109 2 years ago
Ron Paul and Ayn Rand 2012.
Chuck norris secretary of defense
God I love ayn Rands anti-communist ideal. save the USA from socialism
ugotpimp 2 years ago 3
Man I love this part of Fountainhead. I still argue with people that this case was about vandalism of government property vs vandalism of Roark's work
redwolfdemon 2 years ago
Ayn Rand aka Alissa Zinovievna Rosenbaum was one crazy soviet jewess.
xxmonickkkkaxx 2 years ago
Fuck herd mentality!
THAWK3 2 years ago
he is going faaar to much.
egotumy31 2 years ago
To me Gary Cooper is Howard Rourk... I love him in this movie... so much!
inkenyo 2 years ago 4
Great speech in the book- really strange in this scene though.
thedeadpelican 2 years ago 3
I agree, not the best portrayal of the speech.
SkyBlueMind 2 years ago
Cooper was badly miscast - too old and too wooden.
ObamaRules4Ever 2 years ago 4
RON PAUL = HOWARD ROARK
TheLogicJunkie 3 years ago
Ayn Rand changed my life.
AECRoutemaster 3 years ago 27
She helped me to change my life, too.
hyancinth70 2 years ago
@AECRoutemaster AWESOME PEDANTIC LOGIC
1) The man who invented fire was burned at the stake? Fire came from it's natural occurence and people were awed at its warmth and utilized it.
2) Every new invention was denounced? Sure those who innovated hunting spears, the light bulb, car, etc were unmercifully ridiculed but in what realm?
3) Edison and the line of inventors who created the light bulb were prompted by money & recognition.
What planet do Randists live. Where's the rational mind?
artistphilosopher 1 year ago
*cheers wildly*
:-D
TheLogicJunkie 11 months ago
And I'll go one further:
Ayn Rand SAVED my life.
TheLogicJunkie 11 months ago
And, actually that's not nearly accurate enough, so I'll try one last time:
Ayn Rand GAVE me life.
TheLogicJunkie 11 months ago
"...his integrity as his only banner."
SICK BURN!!!
This is the most amazing speech ever.
howweuse 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So much said here about the evils of collective acts, even so far as quoting the Constitution if the United States to support objectivism.Yet all of this is under the name of the United States of America; a union of states. In other words a collective.
flatblackrose 3 years ago
I fail to see the correlation.
Imyoursuperior 3 years ago
flatblackrose - A point that shows some thought but erroneous none the less. Objectivism has no problem with a society united under certain morals or ideals as long as they promote reason, logic and individual freedom. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I do not consider myself an objectivist but Rand was one of the most brilliant thinkers in human history and I credit much of my intellect to her. Do not be so quick to overlook her or her work.
mryup 3 years ago 2
Love this scene, but Gary Cooper just doesn't work for me as Howard Roark
vafgod 3 years ago
"I solemly ask of any man who hears this case...to let his own mind pronounce a verdict upon it."
Ironic. The D.A. doesn't realize that, by asking the jury to use their MINDS, he's unwittingly handed the case to Roark!
I love Roark's speech. He's very spot on with every point. I love how Rand was able to work into the script the most essectial points of the book's speech, without giving it a "choppy" feel!
RushLimborg 3 years ago
excellent
quitearow 3 years ago
Why isn't Ayn Rand required reading in high school? Objectivism is something everyone should be acquainted with.
Artsettimavn 3 years ago
Because her arguments are very weak, and not based in reality. Also philosophy is not a required course in America, and if it was (or if it's an elective) there are many more philosophers who are much more important, and whose arguments are better than her, Hyack for example.
rjbonacolta 3 years ago
It is quite possible that objectivism would not only turn all the women into men, but all the men into vaginal waste devices.
proberush 3 years ago
No. It would be nice if everyone would choose to be aquainted with Objectivism. The world would be a much different place. However, Objectivism is not meant to be forced on anyone.
hyancinth70 2 years ago
gregory peck would have made a better roarke
dm76dm 3 years ago
Gregory Peck would make a better anybody.
rjbonacolta 3 years ago
@rjbonacolta Gregory Peck sucks.
NinjaRunningWild 1 year ago
where are these kind of ppl today. 5*'s
1NethgilN 3 years ago
Great statement of truth....bait to the "progressives". Who does not feel like this - if they can think??
haldenver 3 years ago
truth. pure uncompromising truth.
Demian164 3 years ago
ok this book was ballin'...but roark was supposed to be sexy and have red hair...
AiyPeace11 3 years ago
He destroyed property that was not his to destroy.
remoman 3 years ago
He circumcised penises that were not his to circumcise.
proberush 3 years ago 3
howard roark?! more like HOW I'M BORED!!
hahahaahah
penis
proberush 3 years ago
Congrats, your statement is based on more fact that the collection of Randian thought.
rjbonacolta 3 years ago
Yeah, it's tough being a bringer of truth sometimes. You have to deal with negative votes and e-sacrilege and stuff like that. Oh well. Penis.
proberush 3 years ago 5
Bringer of truth??????
Great. At last, we have found George W. Bush's lost child!
PastochoCiprano 3 years ago
AND I get to do it under the guise of a political movement which once meant something!
proberush 3 years ago
I am man within the collective of bodily functions
I have to pee
herpesarefun 3 years ago 4
As time goes by this "future" is fast becoming our present! Where is Howard Roark - where is John Galt?
edwardjjones 3 years ago
Their names are Rockefeller and Cheney.
rjbonacolta 3 years ago
That this is a product of the 50's,makes it all the more relevant.We are in a new age of McCarthyism.A world where dissent and indepndence are percieved as being treasonous and criminal.The neocon goal is to make us the biggest collectivism.A veritable beehive or ant farm.Individualists are the wrench in their gears.Individualists ruin the game they're playing.
Taranau 3 years ago 6
Sometimes, when I'm alone at night, I take bong hits while chanting, "I am not a number, I am a collective of cells that, if bent the right way, could surely make at least a number 1. Just like in Sesame Street!"
proberush 3 years ago 2
I used to do that,too.But I got over it.
Taranau 3 years ago
This was excellent!
KobyBrandt 3 years ago
thank you!!!!
dioncat 3 years ago 2
beyond brilliant!! 10 ***** ***** !
acerb45666555 3 years ago 3
this is brilliant
congobigp 3 years ago 3
fascinating
t
triondan 3 years ago 2
collectivism is another word for control. they change the terms coined to lead others astray from what a common word which could have been understood from the onset. none of this crap is new. ayan rand writer, re; Rand corporation.
mountain19 3 years ago
Not to be rude, but you do realize that Ayn Rand was against collectivism.
rmorte62 3 years ago
i have listened to many of her talks and not what i got from her. however i could be wrong. could you?
mountain19 3 years ago
No. She and Bill Buckley were completely on the same page in terms of their loathing of anything collectivist. Why else would she create a character like Howard Roark? Roark is Rand, a mouthpiece for her philosopy, Objectivism, which touts capitalism as a panacea for the ills of society. She hated socialism, communism and, for that matter, religion, which when practiced according to its stated tenets, is altruistic. How could you miss this if you've actually heard "many of her talks".
rmorte62 3 years ago
..
:D
J1Goro 3 years ago
I saw all of this movie 30 years ago and I don't even remember this scene. However, I remember at the time I was impressed with the story line and if I could have clicked it into my favorites I certainly would have done exactly that. I agree, this has nothing to do with capitalism or communism, it's individualism vs mobocracy. And today that means Kucinich, Gravel & Paul vs Corporatism = failed election attempts. What a shame! All 3 get 5* for going against the Empire's mission.
desertjournalonline 3 years ago 3
I agree. It's the same way that Orwell's critiques of communism can be appled equally to the corporate fascism of today. Fascism and totalitarianism at their root are both systems that, in practice, subjugate the individual to the ends of elites who view them as little more than chattel. The way things are set up now, it's increasingly difficult for individuals to make a living without serving one huge corporation or another.
rmorte62 3 years ago 2
Ayan Rand, what a great mind!
Jbear9 3 years ago 3
Seems we live in the age of the parasite...
No worries.. It's all been decided for us, not that we give a damn anyway....
"Orgy of self sacrifice"..ooooh they love that one!!
In the end, it's all the same isn't it?
Brawk 3 years ago 5
haha - yes we do my friend...
well in the bible it is already written
the people who are industrious will get rewards!
I think JESUS said that - and pointed to a group of people who were standing in the corner! ;O)
NETER420 3 years ago 2
Jeffersonian Democracy is based on this same principal - the power of the individual vs. the power of corporations. And Jefferson favored the individual. Bush favors the corporati (corporate mobsters). We must restore this principal to prevent mobocracies from destroying individualism.
desertjournalonline 3 years ago 2
Great speech in a very good movie! Gary Cooper, a gentleman!
ElisaHut 3 years ago
5*****
acerb45666555 3 years ago
A ruthless egoist vs society.
prussea 3 years ago
did you see the hole movie?
NETER420 3 years ago
Neter, I was tired when I made the comment. Yes of course, individualism vs collectivism. An excellent speech.
And Kernchen you are correct, this is not about Capitalism vs Communism, rather selfishness vs parasitism.
prussea 3 years ago 4
;O)
to bad the hole movie was on google vid. - but is gone ;O(
NETER420 3 years ago
hey neter, itsgottastilBsomewhere
this story is juStarting2bTold
this is but one incredible facet of a greatbigLobeARTh its incredible just to be able to see this one clip. i'd like to find the whole movie for sure.
peace.
aprePos 3 years ago
A great speech, this was from the time where Hollywood wasnt unter complet control from some little men who think that what this man is talking about should be destroyed. Sinds the takeover, great movies like these are no longer produced. Incredible. The creative mind is unique to all, you do not have to be an architect or a artist, everybody can use his mind to create. That is what he is saying. A little paper (diploma) does not define who you are!
Kernchen013 3 years ago
A great speech of the defence. That's one side of the coin, but what about the other side?
This is also about Capitalism vs Communism.
Anyway an excellent speech, though the performing artist is acting quite boring.
prussea 3 years ago
Wrong, this is not about capitalism against communism. It is about the individual against the collective. Capitalism does not represent the individual. You are looking at this from your biased mind. Capitalism is another form of communism, the same people are behind it. Study the hegel principle and social engeneering of populations to see why.
Kernchen013 3 years ago 2
Yea, just look at how Communist China is industrializing under capitalism. What a wonder...
desertjournalonline 3 years ago 2
no - it is individualism against collectivism
ore call it "SELF" against non SELF
DHARMA AGAINST CARMA ...
call it what you want - but that is what its all about ...
NETER420 3 years ago 2
Well if this is the nature of achievement, then this architect should accept his fate as the nature of his achievement. If something has an inherent nature you will have the most extreme uphill battle to fight it. I guess it's his right to try, but don't be shocked or even disappointed if you loose.
Like If pick a snake up by its tail, should I be shocked if it bites me?
bpope123 4 years ago
Yeah, in real life blowing up a building would most def. result in jail time. But aside from all that, the message is true, not based on law of man but law of nature. Purity does not exist in group think. It's pure, in all things, but only accessible once noticed within self.
fungku777 4 years ago
Thus, the character Roark in this movie is expressing the truth as things are rationally. He's in touch with his own nature, thus he is in touch with his own nature. He couldn't possibly explain such a thing to a group without coming off as condescending, because it shakes the very foundation "group think" sits on.
fungku777 4 years ago
Only if you're a character in a Disney movie.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
Would you mind specifying what you are referring to?
fungku777 4 years ago
Purity: a euphemism for repression.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago