The Fountainhead Paperback – 1 Sep 1961

I started reading the Fountainhead because I came across the author's name and the term "Randian" a number of times during a short time. (I am from Finland, where Rand is not well known.) I was intrigued by her reputation as a die hard defender of individualism and capitalism and thought that reading her would be relevant amid all the debate over bankers' bonuses, bailouts and the future of the welfare state. I also sometimes wonder about the virtues of individualism on a personal level, which made me all the more interested in reading about Rand's characters, who symbolise individualism and its rival "ideologies." The lives and fates of the characters reveal Rand's take on the merits, implications and outcomes of the thought systems that they each embody.

The novel's hero is Howard Roark, an architect who is the archetype of individualism. Career-wise he is talented, passionate, and uncorrupted: he will not compromise his artistic vision in order to get a lucrative commission no matter how dire a financial strait he is in. He is similarly pure in all facets of life, refusing to feign friendship with anyone, or to sacrifice himself for anyone even though this often causes him much trouble and suffering. Roark's life is noble and contrasts sharply with that of his peer since college, Peter Keating, who symbolises the spinelessness that most people possess to some degree. Unlike Roark, Keating lives for everyone but himself: as an architect, he has no style of his own and craves recognition rather than self-expression. Even in his love life, the most personal thing of all, he lets the opinions of others dictate his actions. Although he has an influential network and is a member of high society, Keating's relations with people are hollow and unfulfilling, whereas Roark's are meaningful and deep.

Roark's real antagonist is Toohey the socialist. Unlike Keating, who cannot articulate the reasons for his discomfort with Roark, Toohey understands Roark perfectly and despises all that he represents. Roark exudes strength and independence; Toohey has always protected and sided with the weak (both in his personal life and professionally, as a socialist agitator and writer). He is one of the few who recognises Roark's genius, but is intent on destroying him. In Toohey's opinion, Roark and his wonderful buildings would not inspire and elevate the rest of the population, but rather depress them by showing them what greatness people are capable of, but which they themselves never will be. Toohey advocates the sacrifice of individual achievement and self-expression to egalitarianism through mediocrity, and is portrayed as the most despicable character of the novel. The life of his niece, Catherine, demonstrates the result of living according to Toohey's philosophy. She devotes herself to her career as a social worker, completely abandoning her own needs in favour of those of societys' weakest members. Rather than finding the fulfilment that Toohey promised she would in relieving herself of her own ego, she feels bitter and empty to the point of losing her humanity. There could be no clearer indictment of socialism than this. Rand suggests that if, by contrast, everyone lived like Roark and pursued their own self-interest, all human relations would be purer and people would be happier and more fully human. This is, of course, the classic argument for capitalism.

Rand's worldview is very black and white. As many have noted, her characters are one-dimensional vehicles to express ideas, and are hardly realistic. Roark is presented as the ideal human being and seems to have no internal contradictions or flaws, while Keating lacks any redeeming qualities. Rand seems to be very contemptuous of the average person, represented in the novel by the mindless readers of a filthy tabloid newspaper called the Gazette. She idealizes Roark's strength, creativity and resolution but has no regard for other values such as kindness, cooperation and altruism. This, of course, is her point: that it would be best for individuals and society if everyone uncompromisingly pursued their own interest. This idea has been acknowledged as overly-simplified in economics, and I think it is also that on an individual level. In my opinion, altruism, cooperation and wanting to be accepted by others are fundamental aspects of human nature, albeit more present in some people than others. The quality of seeking others' approval, which Rand so scorns in Keating, has been seen by for example Adam Smith as the very glue that holds our society together and creates the basis of our morality.

Precisely because of its polarization, The Fountainhead is extremely thought-provoking and inspiring. It does not surprise me that many people have described it as a life-changing work: who couldn't help but admire someone as strong, free and independent as Roark. Although I do not believe that it would be possible or desirable for everyone to become like him, I do think that most people would benefit from trying to adopt some of his qualities. In this sense the fountainhead is very inspiring and perhaps for some, life-changing. It is also a very engaging and entertaining read which touches upon debates that are relevant today. I highly recommend it.

Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness" is certainly an interesting and thought provoking collection of essays. In the book you get what is displayed on the cover by means of its title, namely an undiluted brand of selfishness. But don't be put off by the brand because whilst many might disagree with the book's broad thrust there is certainly plenty of food for thought.

The collection of essays was written in the early 1960's making some of them 50 years or nearly 50 years old. The range of topics the essays cover is quite broad including issues such as: mental health versus mysticism, the ethics of emergencies, selfishness, the psychology of pleasure, man's rights, the nature of government and racism to mention a few of the topics. Most of the essays were written by Rand with some contributions from one of her disciples, Nathaniel Branden. If there is a single unifying issue threading its way through the essays it is the concept known as an "ethics of rational self-interest". Rand begins her collection of essays with "The Objectivist Ethics" in which she seems to be in search of an Ethics that is based on rational objectivity. This first essay should be read carefully as it provides the theoretical foundation for all the other essays.

In her effort to lay the foundation of an objectivist ethics, Rand outlines a dense argument by analogy in order to undermine the acceptance of Hume's argument that one cannot derive "ought" form "is". In other words, something that is a fact does not tell us how we should behave or act. In short, Rand's dictum states: "the fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do." Although she does not undermine Hume's argument, to some extent her argument here is quite persuasive especially as she emphasises the point by telling us that: "knowledge for any conscious organism is the means of survival; to a living consciousness, every "is" implies an "ought".

What we get in the Objectivist Ethics feels like a sermon. A sermon blasted at the reader from a right wing perspective. Although Rand was an atheist one is left with the impression that the text of "The Objectivist Ethics" could serve as a new chapter in the bible for those right wing USA preachers and broadcasters. It's a text that rails against slot and dependency. We are told: "Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceed from the achievement of one's own values. If a man values productive work, his happiness is the measure of his success in the service of his life."

Let's be clear what's been railed against in these essays is altruism. The OED defines altruism as: "The belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others." In the essay, The Ethics of Emergencies, for Rand this position is almost despicable and she has an interesting way of turning the issue upside down. She says: "By elevating the issues of helping others into the central and primary issue of ethics, altruism has destroyed the concept of any authentic benevolence and good will among men." But despite this hard headed stance against altruism and one's intuitive negative reaction against it, nonetheless one is left feeling that there is some truth to the objectivist ethics as many of our behaviour and actions are borne of selfishness.

The relevancy test raises its head in relation to these essays or at least some of them. The obvious question is 50 years on does these essays address the contemporary socio-economic, political and moral situation in which human beings find themselves? Some might want to argue that the question is at least debateable for me the short answer is yes at least some of the essays do address our contemporary situation. Where rand points out that: "moral neutrality necessitates a progressive sympathy for vice and a progress antagonism to virtue" one can easily apply that dictum to the liberalism that we encounter today in so many aspects of our lives - for example those in authority wanting to sit on the fence and try to find reasons to mitigate bad behaviour.

One question to bear in mind when reading these extreme right wing texts is to ask oneself who are these kinds of texts ruling out or ignoring? Reading between the lines of many right wing texts one could sometimes detect the sexist, homophobic and or racist nature of them. Ayn Rand's essays are no exception. She holds the USA and its historical trajectory in high esteem. But in doing so Rand appears willing to overlook one of the indelible stains on the USA - namely slavery. In discussing the declaration of independence in relation to man's right, Rand points out that the limits of a government role in society is one of protecting man's rights from physical violence. As a result of this limited role of government in relation to the USA of course Rand goes on to say: "The result was the pattern of a civilized society which - for the brief span of some hundred and fifty years - America came close to achieving" tell that to those who suffered as slaves and those still suffering from the legacy. Although she acknowledges that such high aim was not "consistently practiced" she nonetheless blames what she calls "America's inner contradiction" on "alturist - collectivist ethics". This is disingenuous those who did not achieve high standards set by the declaration of independence were of the same right wing, individualistic ilk as Rand.

Rand's essay on racism is to be applauded. I broadly agree with some of the points she raise. However, I found it ironic that she should attribute the critical points she makes to collectivism rather than to her own right wing followers. I guess the extreme brand of right wing politics and philosophy Rand puts forward knows how to perpetrate its racism in a subtle and covert manner.

Whatever, my stance is towards the essays, they certainly are engaging and thought provoking. Some fifty years on the essays resonate, they are still relevant and worth reading.

First off, I haven’t yet read the novel in its entirety, so I won’t comment on the narrative, though reading Rand prior, I’m sure this is just as good as her other work.

All I wanted to say was the book didn’t come in great condition, there were some folded pages, and an odd ledge in a large section. I won’t bother returning it, as there’s no impact on the text itself, but I just wanted to comment on that.

That said, I bought the same copy type of Atlas Shrugged months ago, and had no issues with that print.

Ultimately, don’t let me put you off because of one bad print, Rand’s work always reads well.

A classic treatise on human nature, individualism and philosophy. I'd read it years ago and loaned it to a friend to read, so needed to add it to my collection again.

Prefer this narrator over the others, and of course the material is astounding. Second only to Atlas Shrugged, this work deals more with individuals while Atlas explores the same philosophical issues within the context of society. Would recommend tackling Fountainhead prior to Atlas due to the superior character development and enhanced complexity of ideas found in Atlas. Highly recommend both in unabridged format.

Must be up there as one of the best books I have read. Not an easy read when you first come to it as it's so differently written. I was hooked by it.

objective

Who am I to comment on Ayn Rand, if you like good literature give it a read.