Ayn Rand
Topic started by sandy (@ 203.197.42.84) on Sat Mar 10 03:23:03 .
All times in EST +10:30 for IST.
I have been a great fan of Ayn Rand and her novels have really fascinated me. Her philosophy of selfishness is really appealing
Responses:
- Old responses
- From: Kresynth (@ spider-ntc-td051.proxy.aol.com)
on: Sat Oct 27 01:36:25
Hi,
I just watched the Sense of Life movie the other day. Is Cynthia Peikoff related to the ARI guy, Leonard?
- From: Sambhavi (@ 202.153.46.2)
on: Wed Dec 19 06:59:14
I read only fountainhead, so im not very qualififed to post an opinion on ayn rands philosophy as a whole.
However, what really struck me as i finished reading the book was that she almost says that to love someone passionately, you shouldn't actually feel the love. You need to do the right things, make the right 'sacrifices', but not really feel anything.
And what's the point of Domnique marrying Peter Keating and Gail Wynanad? Is it to say that if she can't live up to the standards set by the man she loves, she should go ahead and marry another and ruin his life?
I know that when someone says anything critical of Ayn Rand, most people say something 'deep' like "You'll appreciate it when you're older" or "thets the depth of it".
Its ironic that that's the very trait of people that she makes fun of...
- From: Faiyaz Hardwarewala (@ cf1.emirates.net.ae)
on: Wed Dec 19 11:26:32
How not to learn from The Fountainhead
Lest I am misunderstood, let me at the outset say that what follows is not in any slightest way a criticism of Fountainhead. I am an ardent admirer of it, as I am of all other AR’s books.
I suspect many new readers of Fountainhead, upon a superficial read of the book, conclude that Objectivism is impractical and never go on to learn further about it. After all, some have said to me: How can anyone meaningfully live like Howard Roark in today’s irrational world. One person I know even felt that Gail Wynand is the more practical character in the book, despite his sad end.
Then there are those who do try to understand Objectivism, but based on their erroneous conclusion about it through The Fountainhead, try to apply Objectivism in an erroneous, and potentially devastating way.
For me, the source of this problem is simply that most people do not understand the difference between a work of art and a text book --or rather, between a novel and say, a treatise on ethics. They tend to approach a novel as one would approach a non-fiction book, and never understanding the difference, commit this error. And this problem is further accentuated by the fact that for most people their first introduction to Objectivism is through The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.
Having said this, let me start by spelling out the difference between a novel and a text book. A novel as a work of ‘art is a SELECTIVE recreation of reality...” ‘Selective’ meaning that the author includes only those aspects of reality which he regards as important. This raises the question that what is the criteria by which one ascertains what is important to the novel and what is not? Or, by what standard does a good author decide what to include in the novel and what to exclude, what to regard as essential and what not to. The standard is the ‘Theme’ the novel seeks to dramatize. So, the criteria for what is essential for the author is based on how brilliantly and artistically an aspect of reality can dramatize the theme of his book.
Does this mean that all those aspects of reality which the author leaves out in his novel are necessarily unimportant in life? NO!!! In other words, what is shown as unessential in a novel need not be unimportant in real life. By the same reason, to treat a novel as a textbook detailing an exhaustive treatise on how to live life can be very tricky and dangerous.
To take an example used by AR, an aeroplane’s purpose is to fly and its parts are selected based on the criteria of that which is best suited to its purpose of flying. But does that mean that what parts it has used would necessarily be best suited for say a bicycle or a car?
To put it more directly, I have seen many people treat The Fountainhead (including myself in the start), as a literal textbook on how to live. And at times with devastating results.
From my own personal experience and observations, there is a tendency among new readers of Fountainhead to conclude from Roark’s aloofness, although erroneously, that they need not understand, judge, learn to relate and deal with people around them. That, just as Roark is only meaningfully conscious and appreciative of those people who share his values, they can happily forget the Toohey’s and James Taggart’s of this world, unless physically obstructed. And they also conclude that just as Roark finally succeeds in The Fountainhead, the Toohey’s, Wesley Mooches and James Taggarts will fall by themselves.
Others, I suspect, regard this as an impractical attitude to take, and conclude that Objectivism is an idealistic but impractical philosophy.
Their error, as I said above, stems from the fact that they tend to learn from Roark’s character outside the theme of the Fountainhead. Mind you, in keeping with its theme, I believe that Roark is one of the most perfect and brilliant characters to ever have been conceived in world literature.
Of the many instances of Roark’s actions that help form this attitude, I can remember his famous reply to Toohey’s question, when Toohey asks Roark privately, what he thought about him. To this Roark replies: But I don’t think of you. Or rather, seems to reply: Why should I ever have a need to think of you and others like you...
Again, the context of this statement obviously ties in with the novel’s theme and Roark’s characterization in it, but many new readers, I suspect, take this literally as a guiding principle. That they need only think about people who share their common values and can happily withdraw in their own productive pursuits, forgetting the parasites. Put into practise, such a person would then find himself at a loss on how to deal with the parasites around him, and would feel a growing sense of isolation and frustration, stemming from his inability to deal with people.
Of course, this is in stark contrast to Objectivism, where such a withdrawal amounts to a failing to practise the virtue of justice. Moreover, such an attitude is what parasites would really want from any productive person, and might even be the first step to the making of a Robert Stadler in the long-run.
I have read that more and more ambitious people today shun the humanities and turn to the physical sciences, hoping to happily forget the parasites. Irrespective of where the common public gets this attitude from, this trend is indeed disastrous, as AR herself pointed out.
Again, AR herself has said that one should know, in clear, explicit terms about the character of everyone one interacts with. This is a prerequisite for any just man; before he can treat people as they deserve, he should be interested in knowing about their characters and motives. Hence, unwholesome as the prospect is of understanding parasites, one cannot be fully oblivious of the James Taggart’s and Toohey’s in one’s own family and social circle.
In this respect, I find a stark difference between Roark’s attitude and that of Francisco's in Atlas Shrugged. These are two characters that AR has developed in some detail in her two books and both of them form two strong and distinct impressions on the reader's mind.
In contrast to Roark, Francisco comes out more potent on both fronts: He is shown to be able to confidently deal with existence as well people, including the parasites around him. He understands their motives and characters and beats them at their own game. While Roark is shown to be uninterested in, if not ill-equipped in this area. For instance, Francisco would have been interested in understanding the motives of the men behind the Monadock Valley project or the Stoddard Temple in the Fountainhead, and as per my projections, would have given back to them, a dose of their own medicine --- something which Roark is contented to let go by and see the men destroyed by themselves. But do parasites, in real life, ever get destroyed by themselves from such a complete withdrawal?
- From: Prince John Periapurath (@ 203.200.151.104)
on: Sat Feb 2 10:10:47
one thing that i couldn't appreciate in objectivism is the importance it gives to individuals. Individualism is a fallacy. The greatest individuals in the world are the most universal and the most humble. The genius is one who learns that his power is not in generating that which he has, but in regenerating that which he gives.
The fool who thinks he can generate power by generating himself camouflages his failure with arrogance. Greatness is not the accentuation of self, but of all Selves flowing through one.
Do not, therefore, seek self-expression through your Self alone, for you will find but little to express. But if you lose your Self in the whole universe, you have the whole universe flowing through you to seek expression.
- From: vengayam (@ 203.200.84.66)
on: Sat Feb 9 01:38:35
Ayn rand is the greatest farce to be perpetuated in literary circles. It is rumoured that the objectivism blah blah was meant only to be a blah blah but the public has took such a fancy to it that she spent the rest of her life making more such miserable deep profunded humbug philos. It is a case of letting the genie out of abottle & having no control over it from that point on. This was told to me by an ex-Rand junkie. Is it so? As far me the world withour Rand followers would be asafer place. Give me PGW anyday
- From: vengayam (@ 203.200.84.66)
on: Sat Feb 9 01:40:15
typo delete "has" in the" has took a fancy... in my previous posting.
- From: vengayam (@ 203.200.84.66)
on: Sat Feb 9 01:40:37
typo delete "has" in the" has took a fancy... in my previous posting.
Tell your friend about this topic
Want to post a response?
Back to the Forum