The Fountainhead and it's effect on our head(medium.com)
medium.com
The Fountainhead and it's effect on our head
https://medium.com/p/ad30c49b1cfb
3 comments
"Stealing is ok" was just an example of how a rational truth can be flawed, it had nothing to do with Ayn Rand's teachings. My impression from Ayn Rand's teachings was that the best possible society was created when people acted in self interest, this is what I mean by the "greater good". In the novel the politicians always spoke about the greater good, but her argument was they were not doing it right, and actually destroying society. The purpose of the essay was about some people's interpretation of her ideas more then the ideas themselves, which is why I believe they have received such a cult following.
How is the reader supposed understand all this unless you actually say it in your essay. Instead you present a distorted caracature of ideas you clearly don't understand.
Let me ask you this: if people don't act in their own self-interst, how should they act? And more importantly how should they express their many desires if not through their actions?
Let me ask you this: if people don't act in their own self-interst, how should they act? And more importantly how should they express their many desires if not through their actions?
The point is I am not making an argument one way or the other. I am simply expressing how I have seen her views interpreted. Some people use her teachings as a foundation for how they make decisions, they have rationalized it is proper to act purely in self interest, and some of those times it is damn cold. And many extremely intelligent scholars have argued for many years about her teachings, writing is a way for me to traverse my mind to come to deeper understandings.
This article is such a collection of misrepresentations and misunderstandings of Rand's philosophy that it comes across as a caricature. If Rand's philosophy was as obviously stupid as this guy portrays it then I doubt it would still be popular 30 years after her death. The only error that I will address is that Rand presented her ideas in her fiction. She did do this, of course, but these were necessarily a consequences of her complete philosophic system which she fully explained in numerous non-fiction works. I'd recommend starting with The Virtue of Selfishness to see for you self.
Ok that's fair, one question though because this was what I got out of the book. Do you believe the main big picture purpose of Ayn Rand's philosophy was to create the best possible society? I definitely may have over simplified her idea of selfishness, however the article was more about popular culture's interpretation of it, and maybe making a caricature of it is quite common.
> Do you believe the main big picture purpose of Ayn Rand's philosophy was to create the best possible society?
No, that was just a consequence of her primary goal. She actually said she had no deep interest in politics other than to define a rational base for capitalism so she (and those like her) could be left alone to create. That was the basis for the title of her novel that free individuals are the fountainhead of all the values we enjoy. Her primary stated goal was to present the ideal man in her novels. In order to do that she discovered that she had to define her own philosophy of Objectivism. A complete philosophy doesn't start with politics or society but more basic questions such as the nature of existence, consciousness, knowledge, reason and ethics which all have to be defined to intelligently discuss politics (the highest level).
In reading your article and replies to others I see that the goal in your article wasn't to explain or discuss Objectivism so much but to explain the cultural phenomenon of Ayn Rand's popularity. My recommendation would be to read some of her non-fiction works like the one I recommended on selfishness. BTW, she qualified her advocacy of selfishness as acting on ones rational self interest, not emotional indulgence as you implied. (This is a common misrepresentation of her view). Also, she thought that emotions were important and essential to the human experience but they are not primaries nor means to knowledge. If you are interested in what Rand was all about you should also read her books Philosophy Who Needs It and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.
No, that was just a consequence of her primary goal. She actually said she had no deep interest in politics other than to define a rational base for capitalism so she (and those like her) could be left alone to create. That was the basis for the title of her novel that free individuals are the fountainhead of all the values we enjoy. Her primary stated goal was to present the ideal man in her novels. In order to do that she discovered that she had to define her own philosophy of Objectivism. A complete philosophy doesn't start with politics or society but more basic questions such as the nature of existence, consciousness, knowledge, reason and ethics which all have to be defined to intelligently discuss politics (the highest level).
In reading your article and replies to others I see that the goal in your article wasn't to explain or discuss Objectivism so much but to explain the cultural phenomenon of Ayn Rand's popularity. My recommendation would be to read some of her non-fiction works like the one I recommended on selfishness. BTW, she qualified her advocacy of selfishness as acting on ones rational self interest, not emotional indulgence as you implied. (This is a common misrepresentation of her view). Also, she thought that emotions were important and essential to the human experience but they are not primaries nor means to knowledge. If you are interested in what Rand was all about you should also read her books Philosophy Who Needs It and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.
Ok well it makes sense that she chose to start at the highest level and work her way down. And yes I was speaking about culture.
She was absolutely brilliant, probably somewhere up there in the top thinkers in history. But building a functional society is obviously exceptionally difficult, and the highest level arguments seem to me more of a thought game for academics then a practical solution to a pressing and absolutely real societal problem. I guess the reason I wrote the article is because at times misenterpretation of complex ideas can be dangerous. Maybe similar to how Germany's propaganda misinterpreted the teachings of Nietzsche.
And thanks for your input, it's helpful
She was absolutely brilliant, probably somewhere up there in the top thinkers in history. But building a functional society is obviously exceptionally difficult, and the highest level arguments seem to me more of a thought game for academics then a practical solution to a pressing and absolutely real societal problem. I guess the reason I wrote the article is because at times misenterpretation of complex ideas can be dangerous. Maybe similar to how Germany's propaganda misinterpreted the teachings of Nietzsche.
And thanks for your input, it's helpful
I think you got it backwards: people act in their self-interest resulting (surprisingly to some) in many of them getting what they desire. This is not a theory but a description of reality.
"for the greater good"? "stealing is ok"? These are the arguments of the villains in Ayn Rand novels.
"selfishness" (as defined by Rand) means to preserve what you value most and do not sacrifice a higher value for a lesser value.