Initial Reactions to The Fountainhead

[TheTruthgeneral]

I agree with ayn rand that if you do not accept some aspect of her philosophy you can't claim to be an objectivist. However it does not mean she thinks you are incompetent or dependent on others it is just the case you can't call yourself something you are not if you disagree with her philosophy then you can't then say oh I accept her philosophy that act itself is in blatant contradiction with one of her major tenents which is the law of identity or non-contradiction A can only be A

[firerunee3]

Objectivism is not "individualistic" in that it does not encourage people to take and molest her philosophy -- as with any group, philosophy, religion, etc., it demands that you accept the tenets if you are to be counted as a member. Like, if you're a Jew, but you claim that Jesus was the messiah, you're not gonna be a welcome part of the community for much longer. She thought that if you want to be a part of her group, you accept her rules. Objectivism isn't for everyone.

[miryoku]

A lot of people look too deep into the idea of objectivism, including Rand herself, towards the end of her life she became a very difficult and nonsocial person and was often overly defensive in interviews. Dont look into it so deep, the basic idea is that every action one takes is in their own self interest. Even acts considered selfless (altruistic). the principal is more getting past the idea that altruism is to be the righteous goal of thought, and accepting that desire is our basic drive.

[Gnomefro]

@miryoku I think she overshoots the target by a fair bit, but she has many good points. It's pretty clear that she's right about altruism being a pretty poor goal in itself. And if I had to choose either being 100% selfish or 100% altruistic, I'd go with selfish. I see no reason to view the world in black and white like that though, and I find the word altruistic useful in distinguishing between someone requesting a tip in advance for helping a guy having a heart attack and someone who doesn't.

[aditisimpson]

i think, you are a very cute person

[MoonLightFacade]

You got it spot on. The book is probably one of the best pieces of literature ever written, but Rand's philosophy IS contradictory to the entire purposeful reason of its existence, which is to not "second hand" or conform to anything. At all. That's why I really decided to drop Atlas Shrugged after page 31; it was too religious and cultic.

I'll even admit that I was nearly getting an Objectivist mindset before I snapped out of it and realized the truth behind it all.

[MoonLightFacade]

I think it is a possible to create the ideal man within one's self, but that ideal human being isn't what Rand says it is - it's what the individual him or herself sees. Roark is a beautiful human being because he has a passion for his work and his vision, and refuses on any grounds to sacrifice it by any means for anything. Nothing. At all. He also has a deep and profound way of looking at things.

[MoonLightFacade]

There's no doubt the book changes one's perspective. That doesn't constitute Objectivism, or any other philosophy to be the end all be all of everything though. The key is to think, and not rely on someone else's interpretation of the world to change your views on what the world is. As long as you're not harming anyone else, there is nothing wrong with that.

[spunkyspam]

because don't forget when you think of buildings you would think of the people living inside it as well. But to take that element away from the picture, how does it work?

[spunkyspam]

It is impressive as we see it. But how do we know those standards that he's set himself up against society are the ones which are true? Does it all come down to integrity in the end? It says that he has a mind of his own, turning a blind eye to the people around him, to the things around him, even to the buildings around him (all he cares about is the skill, his thoughts)

[animalchin4]

i agree with your questioning objectivism. a majority of 'anti'-whatever beliefs and followings are... well in and of themselves.. hypocritical. if youre so against forming social groups and gatherings of conforming thoughts and beliefs... how can people groupe a bunch of radicals together and call themselves an anti-group?

[PsyogiBottoms]

I hope you eventually understood the point - What she is saying is BE AUTHENTIC in every thing you do.

Period. That's it. Just don't kid yourself - be authentic about who and what you are.

[JackieCharlie]

A useful way of thinking in my opinion is Nonviolent Communication by Dr. Marshall Rosenberg... much more healthy! It is also a way of living that helps us keep our individuality and providing tools to help others with their own individuality, without as much dogmatism.

[JackieCharlie]

Read 'The benefits and hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand' by a close associate and practitioner of objectivism for 18 years Nathaniel Branden. It helped me understand a lot and he addresses your question too! (at the end)

[SATANECRONOMICUS]

you..have..thick.....brows. lol . i look forward to reading it.

Hail Satan.

[lordhighexecutioner]

I understand why some of what Rand says is appealing, what she says about asserting one's own personality and not compromising, and trying to do what you can by yourself, as things to help build your personal sense of self. However, in the end, people need people. You cannot live by this purely. You end up like someone on the autistic spectrum! People cast themselves as this hero when most people are not heroes... most people come out badly in her world, and in implementations of her ideas.

[JohnBigBootay]

History proves you wrong. Everything great ever created was created by individuals. Even if you fail in your pursuit, at least you lived like a real man or woman and not a parasite, or an obambot.

[lordhighexecutioner]

Rand was effectively anti-individualistic... she seems to see the world as including supermen who have complete freedom and the rest of us who are to have no freedom whatsoever. We are part of a blob called "looters". Roarke describes Producers as people who are Inventors and Creators who have unlimited financing. Such people do not exist... Rand effectively worshipped the powerful whom she thought should enjoy absolute freedom... She claimed that these supermen held up society, which is false.

[XxxNuMbxxX0301]

"Roarke describes Producers as people who are Inventors and Creators who have unlimited financing."

Have you ever read The Fountainhead? Throughout the novel Roark is destitute and enduring seemingly insuperable opposition. He does not have "unlimited financing."

[br1an419]

For an entire minute you tried to find the right word, and I think you mean to say it's a paradox. That's a great thought. Rand seems to be running around in circles, even with her own philosophy of rejecting collectivist ideals.

[kittyket00]

why is this so boring. WHY Did you have to deliver this in such a boring way., THIS IS THE MOST BORING VIDEO ON YOUTUBE.

[zzzfore]

Why do people read and discuss this dribble? Ayn Rand as a novelist: Fail. Ayn Rand as a philosopher: OMG! Total Fail. Now I predict the Ayn Rand fanboys will vote down my comment to -1000.

[sivadnadia]

you're an idiot

[MJCriste]

It's up to the individual to operate with rationality as their standard, since there is no such thing as a collective brain. The emphasis Objectivists place on ideas isn't so that they can get a group of people to conform to one another, it's to find truth, but when truth is the standard, then the Law of Identity (reality) dictates that every conclusion one makes can only be one of two things: right or wrong.

[MJCriste]

But the fundamental concept that's the underpinning for the entire philosophy of Objectvism is Rational vs. Irrational.

[MJCriste]

Rand realized that the strength of a person's knowledge is directly related to the exactness of a person's definitions. That's why she always dramatizes concepts with their inverse, like a compare and contrast (Howard Roark vs. Peter Keating). Individualism vs. Collectivism.

[RichardRoy2]

Good for you; you're using your own head. That's what I took away from Objectivism. Personally, I think Rand was brilliant, though I don't necessarily agree with everything she ever wrote. But you will find many excellent guidelines to life as a human being. Don't stop reading; I think you'll be intrigued. The things you finally accept will be your choice, but, sometimes that can take a lifetime to determine, depending on how your life bangs up against reality, and what you take away from it.

[bakukenshin]

I would agree with your assessment of "absolute conformity". And Peikoff's tenor can sometimes be shrill. I recommend Kelley's "Truth and Toleration in Objectivism". Peikoff is not objectivism. Neither is Kelley. Don't make the mistake of judging the whole philosophy by the demeanor of some of its spokesmen. If you're interested, read more of her work and weigh the argument for yourself. That's what she would have done.

[chopsky]

... As a result, over time the political movement will eventually come to represent something else. If you let people draw their own definitions of Objectivism, eventually Objectivism will come to be something entirely different. No longer the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

(Sorry, ended up being a longer comment than I expected it be.)

[chopsky]

... Otherwise this contradicts the idea of a philosophy which is based on a fact-based reality. If you decide to be selective in which parts of the philosophy you subscribe to, and still call yourself an Objectivist, where will the line be drawn? Evidence of where this leads to can be seen with the term 'liberal'. Note the difference between classical liberalism and modern-day liberalism. Or libertarianism, where you'll struggle to find any 2 libertarians who agree on every issue. ...

[chopsky]

I haven't had a chance to read the previous comments, and there's a good chance this has already been mentioned.

Either way, just a short remark: What you essentially said was, conforming to a philosophy of individualism is anti-individualist. Contradictory, no?

It's not about conforming for the sake of conforming, but rather accepting a philosophy that is based on reason/reality. You can't pick and choose the ideas you like. You have to accept all of them in their entirity.

...

[Beethovens7th]

If you haven't read it, "Fact and Value" is a great essay by Peikoff about the Peikoff/Kelley split. But he does say that it is written for an Objectivist audience so he assumes the reader already has a good understanding of the relevent Objectivist ideas.

You raise some good questions in this video, if I have time I'll make a video response. Think, though, about how Roark treats those many characters in the novel who have different ideas from him.

[Beethovens7th]

"Rand wants you to emulate that character"

Well, sort of. Roark is a concretization of her philosophy though, yes, and the main focus of the novel is ethics.

[Eldxale]

Ayn Rand had a lot of great ideas, but there were some things I had to disagree with.

[elliotcheely]

if you think roarke is contrary to objectivism. read atlas shrugged, the main character of that novel is a straight up anarchist.

[PaulMcKeever]

False. In point of fact, Galt's Gulch is not anarchistic: it is monarchistic (the monarch being Midas Mulligan, who owns the entire Gulch). Galt is awaiting a society that has a government that protects every individual's control over his own person and property, in stead of a government that seizes that control. Galt's Gulch is not the Objectivist ideal society, which is why it is not the place any of the heroes intends to remain in.

[Aynology]

"We are not a state here, not a society of any kind - we're just a voluntary association of men held together by nothing but every man's self-interest. I own the valley and I sell the land to the others, when they want it. Judge Narragansett is to act as our arbiter, in case of disagreements." -MidasMulligan:DagnyTaggart/Ga­lt'sGulchIntro-

The fact that MM 'sells the land to others, when they want it' would discount a monarchy.

Pure semantics would identify it as an 'I'archy in an Egocracy.

[PaulMcKeever]

Thing is, with land, what one sells is an Estate, not ownership. In other words, those who think themselves to "own" a home do not really own a home. They hold a tenancy that they can sell or give to others and that others can inherit from them. Ownership of land, even in the USA, is held by the state. So, in the Gulch - if we take the position that it is not in the USA's jurisdiction - the land is owned by Midas, but tenancies are bought by the various heroes.

[Aynology]

Uh oh, lots of feudal vestige there, your monarchy label makes sense now.

So that means, even if it is established in Colorado, Galt's Gulch would still be vulnerable to expropriation by the state if discovered by looters or outsiders- hence the secrecy.

I'll have to reinforce the Ray Screen with that in mInd.

Thanks for all your valuable knowledge Mr.Paul its much appreciated.

When you're ready to withdraw your moral sanction there's an Electric Gavel here with your initials on it.

(A$A)

[PaulMcKeever]

Oh, trust me, I'm ready. If John would like to pick me up at the Oshawa airport in his gleaming airplane, I'll pack my bags. ;-)

[Aynology]

Um, about that gleaming airplane that awaits you at the Oshawa airport; you might like to break out that 'leather jacket&cowl with the goggles' $XD

You see Mr.Paul, its still pretty much the beginning that's about fifty years late. The fact that the motor unit was so long in the works? well, look at the tumultuous history of the Philosophy - but this much is done and I'm happy. Its now a matter of a civilization in decline juxtaposed with one on the rise - anyone still need proof?

(A$A)

[elliotcheely]

you are right, i stand corrected. thank you.

[grumpone]

nine9s has it right. If you start to pick and choose, sooner or later down the line (and through the grape vine) the phylosophy becomes something else than objectivism. That is why it is better not to call yourself that if you subscribe to something else (which is similar in some way). It is a preservation of private property - a brand of philosophy.

[qtronman]

OK, you have to distinguish between optional values and preferences (what sort of music you like, whether you like blonds or red hairs, etc.) and mandatory values and principles (egoism, etc.).

[nine9s]

When Rand says not to say you're an Objectivist if you disagree with some part of it, what she's asking for isn't conformity, but full disclosure. In her correspondence, and from accounts of her close associates, she never wanted someone to assent just because of her say so. She just wanted to make sure that people didn't start confusing her philosophy with others that seem superficially to be the same. It's basically a kind of brand preservation.

[Aynology]

Interestingly enough, there is a parallel scene in the very pages of the novel in your hand Mr.ithink...

In Part Two(EllsworthToohey) upon Dominique's return to the city she attends an inaugural meeting of Ellsworth's Council of American Builders. It is unquestionably assumed just by her presence that she sanctions the activities of the organization (which she deplores and says so outright).

The Libertarian movement's unconditional acceptance can be likened to what Peter Keating falls prey to.

[do1o]

For fun read Ayn Rand. For philosophy read Nietzsche and Max Stirner. Seriously.

[do1o]

I mean read Ayn Rand as Literature.

[qtronman]

Honestly, I see what you're saying - but don't worry about what you call yourself. There are so-called Objectivists who are not Objectivists in their behaviour. It's really not that important what you call yourself; what's important is what you ~understand~.

[qtronman]

It's like, if I call myself a "student of Newtonian physics", and then I just mouth Calculus formulas without understanding them, and I can't answer any physics or math questions, am I really a Newtonian?

[PaulMcKeever]

Neither Rand, nor her character Roark, demand anything of anyone. To practice her philosophy is to practice HER philosophy, not ones own. At root, her philosophy says: think and act strictly in accordance with the unchangeable, unyeilding facts of reality. If you do, you will survive and pursue happiness. If you don't you are more likely to suffer and die. Thus, all that she, her characters, or her philosophy demand is that nature (the facts of reality), to be commanded, be obeyed.

[SuperFinGuy]

You got a false dilemma there. The purpose of objectivism is honesty, that is being rational and factual. What Ayn Rand means is that being honest is being truthful to one self and surroundings (that's the definition of honesty). They are the same thing! She's just asking people to be objective (honest).

[AnarchyIsForMe]

Her statement was consistent with her epistemology and her view of conepts, to her an Objectivist had a category to belong to and if you didn't you were lying or being irrational to call yourself one.

[brainpolice2]

The Kelly wing is much more reasonable.

[KentLansing]

I'd say 'dip'lomatic.

[qtronman]

"The Kelly wing is much more reasonable."

That is just an arbitrary opinion, based on no evidential data.

[brainpolice2]

Well, it's based on the fact that the ARI is essentially a cult that brainwashes people.

[PaulMcKeever]

Childish nonsense that undermines, entirely, the nature of a cult.

[nine9s]

Diana Hsieh, an Objectivist blogger, has a page devoted to her beginnings with Kelley's organization, and her switch to ARI and Peikoff. Kelley's organization (now The Atlas Society, previously The Objectivist Center, and before that the Institute for Objectivist Studies) has a much more superficial understanding of Objectivism, and its publications sometimes make snarky remarks about her that reflect a very poor understanding of her thought.

[qtronman]

"Kelley's organization (now The Atlas Society, previously The Objectivist Center, and before that the Institute for Objectivist Studies) has a much more superficial understanding..."

Have you seen Kelley recently? I'm not sure how he looked in 1989, there's a video of him on YouTube and he just looks like he's had his soul taken out of him.

[brainpolice2]

Well everytime I see your hero Peikoff I can't help but get the impression that he has epic mental problems.

[BWF89]

My first impressions: Holy shit this thing is long.

My second impression: *puts book back on shelf*.

[sirscutter]

You obviously don't have a copy of ATLAS SHRUGGED sitting next to it.

[WorBlux]

No kidding. The audio book reading is 54 hours long. With Galt's speech being 2 and a half hours of that.

[Sepero1]

lol. Get the movie version.

[qtronman]

"lol. Get the movie version."

The movie version is okay, but ain't that good.

[nine9s]

"The movie version is okay, but ain't that good."

Agreed. The acting is just horrendous, especially with the actress who played Dominique. She was totally wrong for the part; she was all melodramatic and over-the-top, always seemed to be playing for effect, exactly the opposite of Dominique.

[PaulMcKeever]

I agree. Even though Rand wrote the screenplay, the movie, in my view, does no justice to the book. It is stiff and wordy; the actor's acting is exceptionally poor; the whole story is so fast-forward as to make one who has read the book laugh. This is not a criticism of Rand, per se. I wonder whether a 700+ page novel of such philosophical depth as The Fountainhead could be done any justice in the form of a 2 hour movie.