[FrassyLap]

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 ?

[OgrGlgHu]

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.

[Boveosteors]

'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.

[cargo_brad]

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.

[horoshevapola]

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!

[Peterli]

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

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.

[polleroy]

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.

[Kimaamighed]

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..

[RogerButton33]

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!!

[Gromiaaborn]

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.

[Zavdpacq]

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 !).

[PyncGyncliacy]

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

[smokeberly]

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 ?

[ErnestTU]

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.

[dahlilaninfo]

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

[Geetiill]

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 , 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 .

[botagozzz]

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.

[Pheddytrourry]

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

[petrarkaponye]

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!

[Gymngatagaica]

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 .