These are notes from my second session of reading The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. It is slow going as I am taking notes, and, quite frankly, haven't been in the right mindset to read this particular book for the past few days. But onward we go!
Peter Keating - Perfect in every way, at least outwardly. Inside he is unsure. Unsure of himself, unsure of his skills or talents, and unsure of his place in life. There are so many who suffer these same insecurities without the advantages he has. I'm not sure yet if I should feel pity for him or empathy. His mother is passive-aggressive and manipulative. His friends don't seem to really be friends because his facade, his public face, is too impenetrable. I'm curious to see where things go and what he ends up representing.
Page 38
New word: Pilaster
Definitions: The pilaster is an architectural element in classical architecture used to give the appearance of a supporting column and to articulate an extent of wall, with only an ornamental function. It consists of a flat surface raised from the main wall surface, usually treated as though it were a column, with a capital at the top, plinth (base) at the bottom, and the various other elements. - Wikipedia
Page 45
"The Columbian Exposition of Chicago opened in the year 1893.
The Rome of two thousand years ago rose on the shores of Lake Michigan, a Rome improved by pieces of France, Spain, Athens, and every style that followed it. It was a "Dream City" of columns, triumphal arches, blue lagoons, crystal fountains and popcorn. Its architects competed on who could steal best, from the oldest source, and from the most sources at once. It spread before the eyes of a new country every structural crime ever committed in all the old ones. It was white as a plague and it spread as such."
Rand demonstrates a serious contempt of history and tradition with this passage. It almost seems as though she has gone past the point of "we shouldn't be slaves to tradition" and into a realm where nothing traditional holds any value, it just holds mankind back from necessary growth.
That seems to be a very extreme line of thought to me. I agree that traditions need to be re-assessed on a regular basis to determine whether they are still applicable to our lives, still relevant in some way. But I am definitely not in the camp that would throw the baby out with the bath water.
Traditions can be updated, changed, or even left behind if that is needed for growth. That said, it should never be done lightly or summarily. Maintaining a connection with the past is equally important as laying a path toward the future.
That's as far as I've gotten right now. More to come as I continue reading!
Showing posts with label Ayn Rand. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ayn Rand. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 7, 2017
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
LiveBlog: Reading "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand
I've never actually read either The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged, and yet 'Randian Philosophy' is referred to on a constant basis in the political world. This made me decide that it was important to go to the source material and try to use it to understand where those who use it as a basis for their outlook are coming from. I started just taking notes in my Commonplace Book, but when I mentioned it, people on my Facebook page said that they would be interested in seeing my notes. Thus, here I am, typing them up as I go.
Just a warning, I'm a fast reader when it is fluff, but when it is something I am really trying to digest and am taking notes on, I tend to go a lot more slowly. So this will probably be a fairly extensive series of blog posts. I will tag them all with the book title and author, so that if people want to go right to them, they can, and those who want to avoid them can easily do so.
The notes will be typed in here exactly as written in my Commonplace Book, no editing, so you will be able to get my reactions as they were in real time rather than reactions modified by reflection on what I had already written.
So...we begin:
Tuesday, January 24, 2017 @ 12:45 p.m.
Ayn Rand's books are the cornerstone of much of the Neo-Conservative philosophy so prevalent in our country today. I want to read this source material to get a better understanding of where they are coming from. I will NEVER agree with them, but understanding is the first step toward defeating their mindset.
Introduction, Page X
"The man-worshipers, in my sense of the term, are those who see man's highest potential and strive to actualize it. The man-haters are those who regard man as a helpless, depraved, contemptible creature - and struggle never to let him discover otherwise." - Ayn Rand
This passage already confuses me. I am not sure how the Far Right, with their Conservative Christian views of man as a sinner and God as his only path to redemption can reconcile the dissonance between these two stances. Or do they even try? Is this one of those conveniently ignored aspects of the whole?
Page 23
"You must learn to understand - and it has been proved by all authorities - that everything beautiful in architecture has been done already. There is a treasure mine in every style of the past. We can only choose from the great masters. Who are we to improve upon them? We can only attempt, respectfully, to repeat." - The Dean
What this says to me at this point is that Rand is setting up "The Establishment" to represent stasis, and Roark to represent change. She is heavily implying that the past holds nothing of worth and only forward progress is worthy of our attention.
To this I have to reply, "Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it." Not in the sense that The Dean talks about, sure that there is nothing better left in man, but in the sense that if we don't take an honest look at the mistakes of the past, we will just keep repeating them over and over. I do not believe in stagnation, but I also do not believe in change just for change's sake.
Page 27
"He did not care. He had never learned the process of thinking about other people." - referring to Roark
That is a very telling passage, and it sums up the modern Neo-Conservative philosophy very neatly. They have never learned the process of thinking about other people. Other people's needs,wants, and motivations are irrelevant to them. "I have mine, who cares about yours?"
I cannot imagine how hollow life must be when living that way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is the end of my notes for Tuesday, January 24, 2017
Feel free to discuss, debate, and consider...as mature, rational adults. Flame wars and personal insults will not be tolerated.
Thank you for your consideration. :)
Just a warning, I'm a fast reader when it is fluff, but when it is something I am really trying to digest and am taking notes on, I tend to go a lot more slowly. So this will probably be a fairly extensive series of blog posts. I will tag them all with the book title and author, so that if people want to go right to them, they can, and those who want to avoid them can easily do so.
The notes will be typed in here exactly as written in my Commonplace Book, no editing, so you will be able to get my reactions as they were in real time rather than reactions modified by reflection on what I had already written.
So...we begin:
Tuesday, January 24, 2017 @ 12:45 p.m.
Ayn Rand's books are the cornerstone of much of the Neo-Conservative philosophy so prevalent in our country today. I want to read this source material to get a better understanding of where they are coming from. I will NEVER agree with them, but understanding is the first step toward defeating their mindset.
Introduction, Page X
"The man-worshipers, in my sense of the term, are those who see man's highest potential and strive to actualize it. The man-haters are those who regard man as a helpless, depraved, contemptible creature - and struggle never to let him discover otherwise." - Ayn Rand
This passage already confuses me. I am not sure how the Far Right, with their Conservative Christian views of man as a sinner and God as his only path to redemption can reconcile the dissonance between these two stances. Or do they even try? Is this one of those conveniently ignored aspects of the whole?
Page 23
"You must learn to understand - and it has been proved by all authorities - that everything beautiful in architecture has been done already. There is a treasure mine in every style of the past. We can only choose from the great masters. Who are we to improve upon them? We can only attempt, respectfully, to repeat." - The Dean
What this says to me at this point is that Rand is setting up "The Establishment" to represent stasis, and Roark to represent change. She is heavily implying that the past holds nothing of worth and only forward progress is worthy of our attention.
To this I have to reply, "Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it." Not in the sense that The Dean talks about, sure that there is nothing better left in man, but in the sense that if we don't take an honest look at the mistakes of the past, we will just keep repeating them over and over. I do not believe in stagnation, but I also do not believe in change just for change's sake.
Page 27
"He did not care. He had never learned the process of thinking about other people." - referring to Roark
That is a very telling passage, and it sums up the modern Neo-Conservative philosophy very neatly. They have never learned the process of thinking about other people. Other people's needs,wants, and motivations are irrelevant to them. "I have mine, who cares about yours?"
I cannot imagine how hollow life must be when living that way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is the end of my notes for Tuesday, January 24, 2017
Feel free to discuss, debate, and consider...as mature, rational adults. Flame wars and personal insults will not be tolerated.
Thank you for your consideration. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)