Ayn Rand's Fountain Head

[buddysathi]

I am reading Fountain Head by Ayn Rand. The author tells abt a philosophy 'Objectivism'. It looks a bit complex for me to understand,, Anyone out there, who has read this novel , strip it down to simple terms for readers like me to understand..

[rajasaranam]

buddysathi,

Good to know that you are reading 'The Fountainhead'. Ayn Rand's philosophy called 'objectivism' is rooted in selfishness/individualism which she thinks as the ultimate virtue of a human being. If you know what selfishness is then there need not be any more explanations about objectivism. She tries to explain how selfishness/individualism can bring upon more happiness and prosperiety to a human soul through complex philosophical deliberations.

I read the books like ' Fountainhead', 'Atlas shrugged', 'We the living', 'Capitalism the unknown ideal', 'Virtue of Selfishness', 'Romantic manifesto', 'Anthem' and 'Night of january 16th' and became a great fan of hers and was practising her philosophy for few years which alienated me from this society and relations. Some of my friends too have been deeply affected by her books and discussed this with me that they cant see things as normal as they were previously. One of my friends is not out of it still and pays a regular visit to a psychiatrist to get of the delirium he is caught up in. [Recently too i met and spoke with him, for 13 long years he is in this state :( . He asked me ' how did you get out of it?' I replied 'i just knew there is something wrong in this philosophy. felt something eating up my core and went in search of something better. 'Karl Marx' saved me :)'. Long back when i got out i tried introducing him to Osho, Richard bach, Robert M Pirsig, Kahlil Gibran, Karl marx et all for him to consider alternative views but he rejected them completely. Now he is reading 'Osho' a lot and i wished him good luck for coming back to planet earth.]

Thus said enjoy reading the book with care and dont get caught up too much into its philosophy. Her usage of words and style of narrative is very powerful and contagious. Read it as a fiction and never try to apply it in your life.

All the best.

[buddysathi]

Thanks a lot Raja for your reply & ur warning :) !!
Yeah.. I can feel the hangover of this book even while I am half way through!!May be when applied properly against the right persons it may have some effect. I am not sure Howard Roark's attitude may be applicable to our Indian society!!

[aravindhan]

Thanks a lot Raja for your reply & ur warning :) !!
Yeah.. I can feel the hangover of this book even while I am half way through!!May be when applied properly against the right persons it may have some effect. I am not sure Howard Roark's attitude may be applicable to our Indian society!!
It won't be effective in any civilised society, in my opinion. One of the most fundamental principles of objectivism is that it is absolutely and at all times immoral to do anything for the benefit of others. The only actions that are moral are those where you yourself are the prime beneficiary, and morality at all times requires that you further your self-interest. The only restraint is that you must not start using physical force against others (although all other types of coercion are quite acceptable, and if someone else starts using force against you you're free to respond with no holds barred).

You decide for yourself what sort of society a belief system of this type will shape.

[rain]

hi,

saw this discussion on fountainhead. cud'nt help pitching in. had read this book more than a decade back.it's a book about objectivism but one can't look at it just objectively. :)

catches hold of ur imagination and emotions and totally drains u out,esp.in ur impressionable years.yes as rajasaranam said it has a very very powerful appeal.sad to know about ur friend.we underestimate the power of words.

if u believe simple faith to be as strong as reason(if not stronger)u will probably pass fountainhead as just another block in the spectrum of human nature.a book can never define human nature.it can only give insights to it.happy reading, though!

rain

[P_R]

One of the most fundamental principles of objectivism is that it is absolutely and at all times immoral to do anything for the benefit of others. I think a better description of the Objectivist principle is :
it is absolutely and at all times immoral to do anything for the benefit of others at the cost of oneself
I think that part makes quite a difference. What say you ?

[aravindhan]

I think a better description of the Objectivist principle is :
it is absolutely and at all times immoral to do anything for the benefit of others at the cost of oneself
I think that part makes quite a difference. What say you ?
I don't think I agree. Objectivism as I understand it takes the view that one's true ethical purpose is one's own life and only that; and the furtherance of one's own life is the only thing that has "objective" value. Producing "objective" value is the main purpose of human life. Any action taken for any other purpose is immoral, because it "wastes" resources that could have been used to produce "objective" value. In other words, if you don't get any benefit out of an act, you shouldn't be doing it.

At least, that's my understanding of objectivism.

[P_R]

'Objectivism makes a brute out of you' is a popular belief. I think that is a misconception. Let me give an example. And I am going to be cliched here:

There is a limping puppy. I pick the puppy of the street treat and save it.( No, I do it even if there isn't a pretty girl looking on). I do it because it makes me feel good. To be more precise: I do it because if I had left the puppy and moved on, the rest of my day would have been miserable.This is quite compatible with Objectivism.

OTOH if I had to jump before a speeding truck and risk getting pulped then it is stupid to save the puppy. If the risk was only scraping my knee then I'd save the puppy. i.e. I make a judgement call, whether it is worth it. This is what Objectivism encourages you to do all the time.

We all make such calls anyway. Only that we feel disgusted making such calls. Objectivism questions this disgust and aims to bring love and hate closer to reason.

Of course, my Rand reading is cursory and my interpretations may not be 'pure'. This is what I took home.

[aravindhan]

We all make such calls anyway. Only that we feel disgusted making such calls. Objectivism questions this disgust and aims to bring love and hate closer to reason.
Yes, and philosophies try to tell you on what basis you should make a call - i.e., when is it worthwhile to do something for others? My impression of objectivism is that it answers the question by saying: "Only when it produces objective value for you yourself." Clearly, though, one of us has misunderstood the philosophy - it may well be me, because I reacted very negatively to it when I first came across it.

[ramsri]

when is it worthwhile to do something for others? My impression of objectivism is that it answers the question by saying: "Only when it produces objective value for you yourself."


have to agree with that for the most part, although PR's puppy example makes for interesting food for thought. after all, according to ayn rand, "man's ego is the fountainhead of human progress".

but then, what i like about the book itself, is the way the philosophy is brought out without too much sermonising. a simple example is the conversation between ellsworth toohey and howard roark which goes something like this-

toohey: why don't you just tell me what you think of me?
roark: but i don't think of you!

[P_R]

toohey: why don't you just tell me what you think of me?
roark: but i don't think of you! :lol:
Read it long back when I was in college. Have never read it again.


but then, what i like about the book itself, is the way the philosophy is brought out without too much sermonising. Agree. That was very conscious writing. If I am right the book was initially planned as a screenplay commissioned by Cecil B DeMille ( or atleast she was writing both the novel and the screenplay in parallel). With all due respect to Vietnam Veedu Sundaram, you can't write a movie that's all long conversations.

In her notes you will find Ayn Rand saying "don't dialogue thoughts".

Though she (excusably) does exceed the brief, she manages a very absorbing presentation . Just when there is a hint of a sermon it is broken into a debate and just when the debate is all volley the scene switches. Boy , I want to re-read.

[atomhouse]

[quote="rajasaranam"]

Some of my friends too have been deeply affected by her books and discussed this with me that they cant see things as normal as they were previously.
Her usage of words and style of narrative is very powerful and contagious. Read it as a fiction and never try to apply it in your life.

quote]

I have to admit that I read the book when I was too young(8th std)and that it was my first novel even before R.K.Narayanan.It affected me so much that I got very deppressed about not being a Roark.The 'second-hand' image of Keating and the loser image of Wynand was all too much for me then.I didn't realise that the Roark-Dominique romance was so cliched.Even then Dominique is the one character I hated so much.
The one tragic charater who still disturbs me is Gail Wynand, b'coz we can see so many ppl like him,ppl who save their daydreams for some sleepless nights :(
Rand's obsession for genius has fast spread consiously or unconsiously(all those health drink & memory tablet ads)and is breeding many Keatings.
Atleast I got some good medicines for this like Jeyamohan & Dostovsky!

[P_R]

The one tragic charater who still disturbs me is Gail Wynand, b'coz we can see so many ppl like him,ppl who save their daydreams for some sleepless nights
........................
Atleast I got some good medicines for this like Jeyamohan & Dostovsky!


Yeah those are very good medicines for sleepless nights.
Jus kidding :-)

That was a nice line about Wynand.I read FH when I was in college. My friend (who read my heavily underlined copy after I was done with it) and I used to chat for hours about it. He was completely crazy about Roark and I was highly impressed with Wynand. I found him to be the best of the lot. We were seriously divided about who won the debate between Roark and Wynand on the yacht. Apart from the content it was also the element of style that Wynand had (a suave Richard Branson type), that made him all the more attractive to me (perhaps that's the very point that's supposed to suck about him !).

[atomhouse]

Apart from the content it was also the element of style that Wynand had (a suave Richard Branson type), that made him all the more attractive to me (perhaps that's the very point that's supposed to suck about him !).

That's true.Both Roark and Wynand had similar background.Roark was uncomprimising and blindly desperate but somehow got help & guidance even without much effort.Wynand fought aginst his desperation and that was his comprimise?Sadly, this dilema is ever existant :(

[ramky]

I also read FH eons ago while in college, so I dont remember much of the storyline. Except that Ayn Rand's style was unique ! Now after reading the posts here, I am recollecting the character names and the plot. Btw can anyone recommend another novel by her ?

[atomhouse]

The other most famous novel by Rand is 'Atlas shrugged' which is considered to be her magnum opus.Only recently I got the book...it is a long one!Hoping to read it soon.

[ramky]

atomhouse : thnx, will try to get it & read it soon !

[thamizhvaanan]

The other most famous novel by Rand is 'Atlas shrugged' which is considered to be her magnum opus.Only recently I got the book...it is a long one!Hoping to read it soon.

just recently I came across "Atlas Shrugged" and I finished it in 8 days ( I am particularly proud of this stat 8-) , my friend said it took him 30 days) .

As others have said in this thread, this book came as a rude shock for me. The new philosophy of objectivism was so compelling and thought provoking that I couldnt sleep for some nights. The story was decent and it was a nice platform for her to stage her philosophy. The dialogues were also very intellectual, not a single line that I could skip casually. Someone said Fountainhead is not that sermonising. But major portion of Atlas shrugged drags like a sermon. Towards the end, the lead character gives a speech which runs for 70 pages :shock: .

[ramky]

TV : so may be reading Atlas Shrugged is a test of one's patience ?

[thamizhvaanan]

TV : so may be reading Atlas Shrugged is a test of one's patience ?

no ramky, I wudnt say that... it depends upon how much you can absorb. Because, Ayn Rand's style of writing itself is aimed at intellectuals, and there wont be a single line that you can read without pondering on its implications (afterall she takes arnd 7 to 9 years to write a novel). It is thought provoking but at the same time the book clouds your senses by simulating a very subjective environment. I mean, while reading the book one will feel that any ideologies that conflict those mentioned in the book cannot be true.

I read the book not to prove my patience, but because I found it very interesting and rewarding to carry on. Infact I started off slowly and picked up speed as I read on. The last 250 pages, I finished in one day!

[sowmeia]

I found this discussion very intresting!! i've always wanted to participate in book-clubs and it is very enlightening to hear different views about the same book. Like everyone here, I was very impressed with the style of the book and AR's ideas. Cant say it affected me personally though..a book is a book!!

Has anyone read any of AR's other books besides FH and AS? Those two are her most popular books. No one has ever recommended any of her other books to me though. Wonder if they are the same or will make an intresting read too.

[thamizhvaanan]

I think these were the only notable "epics" written by her. After Atlas Shrugged she turned to writing philosophical writings, obviously in support of her objectivism. Before Fountainhead she has written some short plays I guess :confused2: .

[ramky]

TV : thnx for ur info :fishgrin: :devil:

[atomhouse]

started 'Atlas shrugged'...think I'm gonna drop the book anytime now before I go crazy...

[thamizhvaanan]

:lol:

[atomhouse]

Is it true that Ayn Rand ended up in a sanitorium?anyways, i'm not surprised..

[Mystic]

i think Ayn Rand's style of prose in Fountain Head was unique, and the ideas expounded by her are certainly thought provoking :)

[atomhouse]

How do you like the characterisation of Dominique in 'Fountain head'?
I really don't get Rand's idea of genius.If they are supposed to be some special breed, feeling aliented from humans,why does she need to write a book which will be read by a mass, whom she thinks unfit to taste it?

[crazy]

started 'Atlas shrugged'...think I'm gonna drop the book anytime now before I go crazy...

Better do it!
I read her AS last month. Wasted my time on reading that book, could have read something else :roll:

I aint that smart to understand her message(or whatever) in that book!

[thamizhvaanan]

How do you like the characterisation of Dominique in 'Fountain head'?
I really don't get Rand's idea of genius.If they are supposed to be some special breed, feeling aliented from humans,why does she need to write a book which will be read by a mass, whom she thinks unfit to taste it? Atomhouse, I think it also works otherway around. Coz, most of us define intelligence based upon our intellect as a benchmark, which we tend to over-rate most of the times. Thus by addressing to us and at the same time by establishing that intellectuals are her audience, she is able to fuel our delusion and make us beleive that we are intellectuals. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt... but I think, that is the USP of her novels :D .

[atomhouse]

How do you like the characterisation of Dominique in 'Fountain head'?
I really don't get Rand's idea of genius.If they are supposed to be some special breed, feeling aliented from humans,why does she need to write a book which will be read by a mass, whom she thinks unfit to taste it? Atomhouse, I think it also works otherway around. Coz, most of us define intelligence based upon our intellect as a benchmark, which we tend to over-rate most of the times. Thus by addressing to us and at the same time by establishing that intellectuals are her audience, she is able to fuel our delusion and make us beleive that we are intellectuals. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt... but I think, that is the USP of her novels :D .
ya...but only we need to be mentally well fit(stable enuf) to take it in a right sense...otherwise it may be misleading..

[sundararaj]

Atlas Shrugged is another of her famous books. It is true that she herself was very much affected by these writings and she led a retarded life at the end.

[rajasaranam]

few days back i finished reading 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard dawkins. The book fairly deals with life, human beings, social actions and many other things.
Revisiting AR's objectivism/Selfishness I could understand how rational RD is in comparison to AR. :notworthy:

[thilak4life]

few days back i finished reading 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard dawkins. The book fairly deals with life, human beings, social actions and many other things.
Revisiting AR's objectivism/Selfishness I could understand how rational RD is in comparison to AR. :notworthy:

Glad that you read that. I'm a dawkinist....And anti-AynRandist with all her one-dimensional ethos, that has a good fan base today. I'm more in line with Nietzsche.

In general, philosophy is a product thes days. People buy the one which would ultimately uplift, and um, inspire them. That's why Ayn Rand works. And, I don't think high of her literary achievements either. Rhetoricians have always got their cake among gullible people. :P

[rajasaranam]

Glad that you read that. I'm a dawkinist....And anti-AynRandist with all her one-dimensional ethos, that has a good fan base today. I'm more in line with Nietzsche.

In general, philosophy is a product thes days. People buy the one which would ultimately uplift, and um, inspire them. That's why Ayn Rand works. And, I don't think high of her literary achievements either. Rhetoricians have always got their cake among gullible people. :P

Yes RD gives a great lot of thought provoking writings, and insight into society's functioning. I got hold of some more books of RD. Did you read 'the blind watchmaker'.

[thilak4life]

RS,
Yes, I have read TBW. I firmly adhere to geneocenteric theory. Even though I haven't had access to the other criticisms, RD has articulated and debated his case well. I'm convinced..

[pavalamani pragasam]

At the rate of about 10 to 20 pages a day I have finished reading Rand's 'Fountainhead'. Not a gripping story to sit through nights & finish it off! A sort of medicine, a sharp tasting one, to be taken in doses!!!

Brushing aside the inevitable revulsion at the moral depravity in English novels, it is almost an achievement to have finished reading this book though the temptation to discontinue was very strong.

A definite blow to customary thought, rebelling against what has been believed so far. In spite of it being a rudely shocking, stunning, sounding true religion of EGO, an unashamed aggrandisement of EGO, to give the devil his due, a beguiling charm in the creed that is preached in the novel. The characterisation is perfect, however crazy they might seem.

The theory expounded by the author throughout the novel is finally given in a nutshell in the testimony Howard Roark gives in court. It is brilliant. I am tempted to reproduce quite a big excerpt from it:

"Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light. He was considered an evildoer who had dealt with a demon mankind dreaded. But thereafter men had fire to keep them warm, to cook their food, to light their caves. he had left them a gift they had not conceived and he lifted darkness off the earth. Centuries later, the first man invented the wheel. He was probably torn on the rack he had taught his brothers to build. He was considered a transgressor who ventured into forbidden territory. But thereafter, men could travel past any horizon. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had opened the roads of the world.
..... ... ...

Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the vision unborrowed, and the response they received -hatred. The great creators - the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors - stood alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. the aeroplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anaesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won.

No creator was prompted by a desire to serve his brothers, for his brothers rejected the gift he offered and that gift destroyed the slothful routine of their lives. His truth was his only motive. His own truth, and his own work to achieve it in his own way. A symphony, a book, an engine, a philosophy, an aeroplane or a building - that was his goal and his life. Not those who heard, read, operated, believed, flew or inhabited the thing he created. The creation, not its users. The creation, not the benefits others derived from it. The creation which gave form to his truth. He held his truth above all things and against all men.

His vision, his strength, his courage came from his own spirit. A man's spirit, however, is his self. that entity which is his consciousness. To think, to feel, to judge, to act are functions of the ego.

The creators were not selfless. It is the whole secret of their power - that it was self-sufficient, self-motivated, self-generated. A first cause, a fount of energy, a life force, a Prime Mover. The creator served nothing and no one. He lived for himself.

And only by living for himself was he able to acieve the thing which are the glory of mankind. such is the nature of achievement.

Man cannot survive except through his mind. He comes on earth unarmed. His brain is his only weapon. Animals obtain food by force. man had no claws, no fangs, no horns, no great strength of muscle. He must plant his food or hunt it. To plant, he needs a process of thought. To hunt, he needs weapons,and to make weapons - a process of thought. From this simplest necessity to the highest religious abstraction, from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and we have comes from a single attribute of man -the function of his reasoning mind.

But the mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. There is no such thing as a collective thought. An agreement reached by a group of men is only a compromise of or an average drawn upon many individual thoughts. It is a secondary consequence. the primary act - the process of reason - must be performed by each man alone. we can divide a meal among many men. we cannot digest it in a collective stomach. No man use his lungs to breathe for another man. No man can use his brain to think for another. All the functions of the body and spirit are private. They cannot be shared or transferred.

... .. .. ..

Nothing is given to man on earth. Everything he needs has to be produced. And here man faces his basic alternative: he can survive in only one of the two ways - by the independent work of his own mind or as a parasite fed by the minds of others. The creator originates. The parasite borrows. The creator faces nature alone. The parasite faces nature through an intermediary.

The creator's concern is the conquest of nature. The parasite's concern is the conquest of men.

The creator lives for his work. He needs to order men. His primary goal is within himself. The parasite lives second-hand. He needs other. Others become his prime motive.

The basic need of the creator is independence. The reasoning mind cannot work under any form of compulsion. It cannot be curbed, sacrifice or subordinated to any consideration whatsoever. It demands toatl independence in function and in motive. To a creator, all relations with men are secondary.

The basic need of the second-hander is to secure his ties with men in order to be fed. He places relations first. He declares that man exists in order to serve others. He preaches altruism.

Altruism is the doctrine which demands that man live for others and place others above self.

No man can live for another. He cannot share his spirit just as he cannot share his body. But the second-hander has used altruism as a weapon of exploitation and reversed the base of mankind's moral principles. Men have been taught dependence as a virtue.

.... ... .. ...

Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give. Yet one cannot give that which has not been created. creation comes before distribution - or there will be nothing to distribute. The need of the creator comes before the need of any possible beneficiary.

men have been taught that their first concern is to relieve the suffering of others. But suffering is a disease. Should one come upon it, one tries to give relief and assistance. To make that the highest test of virtue is to make suffering the most important part of life. Then man must wish to see others suffer - in order that he may be virtuous. Such is the nature of altruism. The creator is not concerned with disease, but with life. Yet the work of the creators has eliminated one form of disease after another, in man's body and spirit, and brought more relief from suffering than any altruist could ever conceive.

Men have been taught that it is a virtue to agree with others. But the creator is the man who disagrees. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to swim with the current. But the creator is the man who goes against the current. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to stand together. But the creator is the man who stands alone.

Men have been taught that ego is the synonym of evil, and selflessness the ideal of virtue. But the creator is the egotist in the absolute sense, and the selfless man is the one who does not think, feel, judge, or act. These are functions of the self.

... ... ... ...

In all proper relationships there is no sacrifice of anyone to anyone.

The first right on earth is the right of the ego. Man's first duty is to himself.

.... ... ..
The only good which men can do to one another and the only statement of their proper relationship is -Hands off!"

However clever & convincing the above exposition sounds my intuition tells me there is something somewhere dangerously, diabolically, deceptive :roll: Cannot be accepted wholly, without resrvations, without counter arguments!!!

[crazy]

At the rate of about 10 to 20 pages a day I have finished reading Rand's 'Fountainhead'. Not a gripping story to sit through nights & finish it off! A sort of medicine, a sharp tasting one, to be taken in doses!!!


:clap:

[pavalamani pragasam]

samaththaa marunthu kudichchathukku paaraattaa? :lol:

[crazy]

samaththaa marunthu kudichchathukku paaraattaa? :lol:

avanga puththagathai porumaiya padichathukku :P

[pavalamani pragasam]

:yes: podi printi-il 679 pages padichchi mudichathu periya saathanai- ippadi oru subject novel-ai!!!

[podalangai]

The Times Higher published a piece on Ayn Rand's 'philosophy' a few months ago, reflecting on her thoughts against the backdrop of the financial meltdown of the past couple of years. I rather liked the piece, but I would, seeing that I don't like Ayn Rand at all:

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=408138&c=1

[P_R]

[tscii:ff89a6f3be]Thanks for the link podalai.

It has to be said once and for all, loud and clear. Adam Smith did NOT say that free market is great no matter what. He lists the conditions (like liberty, for starters !:-)) under which a free market ideal can be achieved. His whole emphasis was on those conditions. But he has been presented by many - including economists as if he mentioned those conditions as minor ones that can be assumed away.

I have a vague feeling that I am quoting something that you quoted earlier, anyway I will..

Noam Chomsky fuming about Adam Smith's legacy (http://adamsmithslostlegacy.com/2008/01/chomsky-fuming-about-distortions-of.html)


What we would call capitalism (Adam Smith) despised. People read snippets of Adam Smith, the few phrases they teach in school. Everybody reads the first paragraph of The Wealth of Nations where he talks about how wonderful the division of labor is. But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later, where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits.

He did give an argument for markets, but the argument was that under conditions of perfect liberty, markets will lead to perfect equality. That’s the argument for them, because he thought that equality of condition (not just opportunity) is what you should be aiming at. It goes on and on. [/tscii:ff89a6f3be]

[podalangai]

It has to be said once and for all, loud and clear. Adam Smith did NOT say that free market is great no matter what. He lists the conditions (like liberty, for starters !:-)) under which a free market ideal can be achieved. His whole emphasis was on those conditions. But he has been presented by many - including economists as if he mentioned those conditions as minor ones that can be assumed away.

Yes, we have discussed this before. The problem goes back to the 19th century, when Liberals (i.e., the Liberal Party as it then existed in the UK) reinterpreted the thoughts of Adam Smith in a manner that seemed to support for the policies they sought to promote. That's become the dominant interpretation of Smith since them. Of course, Smith could hardly have been an 19th century liberal - considering he lived in the 18th century rather than the 19th century.

The other thing which nobody does is to read The wealth of nations together with his Theory of Moral Sentiments. People (economists) usually say his Theory of Moral Sentiments represents his early thoughts, whereas The wealth of nations represents his later, more mature thoughts. The only trouble with this theory is that Adam Smith didn't issue the definitive edition of Theory of Moral Sentiments until many years after The wealth of nations. So yes, Adam Smith is perhaps one of the most misinterpreted philosophers of modern times. I strongly recommend Donald Winch's Adam Smith's Politics if you're interested in reading up on what Smith actually meant, or D.D. Raphael's Adam Smith.

[chevy]

Atlas Shrugged is another of her famous books. It is true that she herself was very much affected by these writings and she led a retarded life at the end.

:thumbsup:

[chevy]

At the rate of about 10 to 20 pages a day I have finished reading Rand's 'Fountainhead'. Not a gripping story to sit through nights & finish it off! A sort of medicine, a sharp tasting one, to be taken in doses!!!


PP Ma'am...This is the best review from you!!!!

[pavalamani pragasam]

Any sarcasm? :roll: Thanks, all the same! I somehow can't understand people raving about this book! :huh:

[chevy]

Any sarcasm? :roll: Thanks, all the same! I somehow can't understand people raving about this book! :huh: oh not at all! Serious!

I am struggling to write a review for Atlas Shrugged for my blog. I could use your help.

My views are mixed.

She is a good writer from angles of those litt graduates who fancy complicated sentences.
My view is that she's a good writer but not a good fiction-writer or novelist because she lacks originality. What is so creative about writing one's own life story and putting out all her frustrations in a creative format.

I could do that too. I often come up with stories that directly take a shot at what/who I don't like as intensely as Ayn Rand does.

I seriously don't think she's a philosophical or literature genius. But she is a good writer. If I were an English teacher, I'd give her a good grade. I also happen to discuss her novel so often 'cause of it's content, not because I think she is great. Speaking about how rules and laws are often framed to cover up for people's incompetencies (of CYA as you can say it in corporate jargon), Ayn Rand's masterpiece makes a very good example, but I completely lack the intelligence to understand her philosophy of objectivism.

Towards the end of Atlas Shrugged, it's more of sci-fi. Imaginary place hidden between mountains and an awesomely creative way of generating power. After much strain, you finish the book and you feel " hmmm, okay" and then you read Ayn Rand's biography and you'll say "sheesh, yuck".

It makes you realize, her work was no creativity at all. It's more like "victim-talk".

Secondly, her personal life - though shouldn't be the criteria of judgment for her novels, but considering it is supposed to be a work on philosophy, I have the interest to know her as a person before I buy her philosophy. Her personal life and her views on it are disgusting. Shows how much her philosophy is going to be on the same lines.

Sighs, I don't think I made much sense in the lines above, but I am still struggling to sit down and write a perfect, satisfying review on Ayn Rand and her work.

[pavalamani pragasam]

chevy, I fully understand what you mean. Fortunately or unfortunately I haven't read Atlas Shrugged. One is enough for me!!! Not keen on reading more from a weird person with weird philosophies! You are right- good grammatical English is essential but if it stops with just that- fails to arouse the curiosity and admiration of the reader it is a waste of time to continue reading. Don't we admire great essayists like Lamb, Pope, Johnson and so on? There is food for thought and exquisite use of words.
It is generally accepted one should not think about the writer's personal life. But it is hard to follow this rule. At least the work must be of extraordinary talent and beauty. Then I'm willing to give the devil his due, thanking my stars I'm not in any way personally related to such a 'person'. :lol:
Ayn Rand's theory of objectivism may be true but it is ugly, defeats all norms of decency and social adaptation. Better there are only few geniuses born if this is their personal philosophy of life and principles of living!!!
I don't know if what I say makes sense to you- I fail often to convince or communicate: so strong are my likes and dislikes, so little I care about criticisms and adverse views. Not very good, I should say! :oops: But can an Ethiopian change his skin or a leopard its spots? :rotfl: I'm content to be myself and willing to let each one to his own opinions! How magnanimous! :lol: Age is mellowing me? :lol2:

[chevy]

chevy, I fully understand what you mean. Fortunately or unfortunately I haven't read Atlas Shrugged. One is enough for me!!! Not keen on reading more from a weird person with weird philosophies! You are right- good grammatical English is essential but if it stops with just that- fails to arouse the curiosity and admiration of the reader it is a waste of time to continue reading. Don't we admire great essayists like Lamb, Pope, Johnson and so on? There is food for thought and exquisite use of words.
It is generally accepted one should not think about the writer's personal life. But it is hard to follow this rule. At least the work must be of extraordinary talent and beauty. Then I'm willing to give the devil his due, thanking my stars I'm not in any way personally related to such a 'person'. :lol:
Ayn Rand's theory of objectivism may be true but it is ugly, defeats all norms of decency and social adaptation. Better there are only few geniuses born if this is their personal philosophy of life and principles of living!!!
I don't know if what I say makes sense to you- I fail often to convince or communicate: so strong are my likes and dislikes, so little I care about criticisms and adverse views. Not very good, I should say! :oops: But can an Ethiopian change his skin or a leopard its spots? :rotfl: I'm content to be myself and willing to let each one to his own opinions! How magnanimous! :lol: Age is mellowing me? :lol2:

Oh goodness gracious!! PP Ma'am. Now that is so like me. I totally lack the ability to convince despite having strong views that should logically be accompanied with strong reasoning. I doubt if age starts mellowing at 20 and I don't want it to and change, I've been thinking about that. Change seems to be absolutely necessary for me unless I am willing to let those unacceptable views pass by me and keep my mouth zipped.

[pavalamani pragasam]

:D So we are on the samw wavelength? zipping the mouth? Something very difficult and not absolutely necessary! :rotfl: I'm very notorious for being 'articulate' about my views/opinions/concepts/principles!!! :shoot: Incorrigible!!! :rotfl3:

[podalangai]

This, I think, is the best comment on Atlas Shrugged I've read:

http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif

[kaveri kannan]

Hi everyone,

I read Fountainhead in late teens - felt ill for few weeks - like typhoid.
Yes mind was typhus like - cloudy, dark, pregnant with thought clouds...

Slowly recovered ..

When I saw my friend's daughter reading this recently -
I thought - Here we go! Like dabbling with poetry and grappling one's own adolescence -
reading Ayn Rand is one of the acts that encompass rites of passage .

If you stagnate , get stuck - you face a high risk of psychosocial morbidity!

Im particulary impressed with the depth of discussions here esp P-R , PP, தமிழ்வாணன், ராஜாசரணன், atomhouse - to quote a few!

P-R, நீங்கள் எதையும் அணுகும் கோணமும் ஆழமும் அழகும் மிக மிக ரசிக்க/ வியக்க வைக்கின்றன..

[P_R]

Thank You kaveri kannan
Oh my, what an old thread :lol2:

Now, I understand better what our podalangai was trying to say :lol2:
rites of passage indeed. But one should hope it passes.