Why The Hell Do I Own A Copy Of The Fountainhead?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 авг 2024
- A deep dive into my relationship with a book written by an author who made a career out of (1) extolling the virtues of artistic independence and (2) monetizing her chronic lack of empathy.
Five Card Shuffle by Kevin MacLeod
Link: incompetech.fi...
License: creativecommons...
Special Thanks to my Patreon Producers: Richard Ashmore, Laura B, Jason Blodgett, Jason Alexander Herrera, Romenia Snowden, Jason Somerton, Sunil, and Raul Villalobos!
Check out my independent film "Second Service" on RUclips: • SECOND SERVICE - Featu...
Twitter: / coldcrashpics
Instagram: / coldcrashpictures
Patreon: / coldcrashpictures
Tumblr: / coldcrashpictures
Amazon wishlist: www.amazon.com...
SOURCES:
Ayn Rand's Mike Wallace interview:
• Ayn Rand First Intervi...
Ayn Rand's Native American comments: • The real Ayn Rand quot...
Ben Bayer article for the Rand Institute:
newideal.aynra...
Ayn Rand & Social Security article:
newideal.aynra...
New York Magazine article: nymag.com/arts...
Resilience Rape Crisis Website: www.ourresilie...
![Tee Grizzley - Detroit (Feat. 42 Dugg) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/aeKfTtt0x14/mqdefault.jpg)
Imagine being, like, a carpenter who worked hard, stayed true to their art and then, finally, created their masterpiece, while working on the Cortlandt project ... and Howard Roark just burns it down cause he thinks he is the only person who put effort into the building.
Are you saying it was a number of different skilled people working together for a common goal in some sort of collective instead of someone who could singly claim ownerships...sounds like communism to me comrade ⚒
Well, I did not pay for college and have mandatory health insurance, so I guess I come from a pretty communist society, actually.
@@Spencer481 *KROPOTKIN INTENSIFIES*
@@mille6354 goals
i’d burn his building back. don’t try me
"HP Lovecraft, I don't even have to say what his problem is."
M E O W
The cats of Ulthar have spoken.
Strip the racism and low key misogamy and his stories are quite good.
😂🤣
It would be a HOOT! to hear a review of "HP Lovecraft", it would be like taking a journey into the mind of a madman.
@@ReplicatorFifth strip out the racism and misogyny and you've got a nifty little journal to write a whole new book in
Ayn Rand was the OG "and everyone clapped" story teller
That's so true lmao.
This is the comment I wanted to make, by a smart person.
@@vlc-cosplayer this made me audibly laugh. Thank you stranger haha.
Racist.
@@postashley lol okay stupid
Ayn Rand's "philosophy" makes a lot more sense when you view it as a reaction to the Soviet Union. Rand's family had their property siezed when the Bolsheviks came to power and no doubt this inspired her to craft a philosophy as polar opposite to them as possible
exactly what i thought!!
Being a selfish piece of shit is not a philosophy.
So basically you are saying she was badly damaged goods. That I'll see as valid. A real nut case.
@@richardmycroft5336 no, she just lived through the horrors of communism. Experiencing such would likely break weak, beta male soy boys like yourself.
no i agree, like when you observe objectivism you have to consider the circumstances. you genuinely have to observe objectivism objectively haha.
For a solid 20 minutes I confused The Fountainhead with Eraserhead and thought: ok, but what has David Lynch to do with it?
I'd watch a Lynch adaptation of the fountainhead, for what it's worth.
Hahahaha
I love that the Animorphs just casually coexists with a very fancy copy of Moby Dick on your shelf
Is this the duality of man?
While hunting the white whale, be sure you don't become the white whale.
...literally, I mean.
I highly recommend Ask A Mortician 's video about the real life event Moby Dick was inspired by. ruclips.net/video/QS299VkXZxI/видео.html
I highly recommend Animorphs: The Reckoning
I noticed it and immediatly regretted it.
My _favorite_ part in Atlas Shrugged is when Dagny is upset that her father’s railroad, which has never missed it’s appointed trek across the country, will be forced to delay due to a section of track lost in a landslide, but, she of iron will is *determined* that the train will arrive on time and so she orders it so and it happens!
Okay, me saying “favorite” was entirely sarcastic because the book never even *_hints_* at the massive mobilization of manpower that would have entailed. It’s treated as a matter of Dagny’s will alone, not one mention of the hundred or so men who would have had to work through the night, probably causing injuries or even death, in order to accomplish Dagny’s desire.
Rand simply does not see laborers and does not believe labor has value. In her stories it’s only the bosses and their “ingenuity” that make anything happen. No matter that the concept is a very small portion of the actual work.
You're ignoring all the parts of the book that contradict this
Can you imagine a world without CEO’s? The horror.
period queen. honestly, kinda wish ayn rand had fallen into poverty or smth after talking about all this bullshit so she could first hand experience the life of a laborer but alas, the universe is cruel
@@malcolmlarri8236 oh so she’s a class traitor, fabulous.
@Geahk Burchill
Did you think that nobody who actually read the book would look at your comment? You don't know what you are talking about. The incident you describe never happened. But there are incidents in which competent laborers are depicted doing their jobs well.
Rand values thinking above all else. And everybody needs to think, even janitors.
"It's okay to accept Social Security payments as long as you do so ironically"
Why wouldn’t it be? We were all forced into contributing. Absolutely right to specially if you were forced into it.
@@kib9749
Rand not accepting it and being wholly self sufficient would have made for a much stronger political message however.
Why did she even need it? Was she not wealthy enough without it? Did she not succeed enough by her own grit?
@@mksabourinable a strong political message doesn’t require martyrdom. it would be absolutely a negation of her own principle that require to never sacrifice herself and the good to anything else, or others to herself. And Also her need has nothing to do with it, it was only justice that she takes it, specially her and people like her ( all the producers or contributors into it). Socially security system is a vile one, the productive get forced into it, and people like you demand they don’t take it, in essence asking them to become a sacrificial lamp. If the Ponzi scheme was voluntary, she would not take part in it (as most of us wouldn’t). Real political change requires more than just a gesture, superficial image and perception, it requires real understanding of principles.
@@mksabourinable Rand accepted the money because it was hers. You pay your own money out of your income for social security. It is not a handout. You pay for it out of your own wages and Rand was a huge fan of getting what you had invested in. Whether she needed the money is irrelevant since it was hers anyway. It was the government who stole it from her.
I'm so sorry that Rand apologists decided to crowd under your comment.
Sigh, Rand sure is "robbed" of her taxes which I'm sure she's SO great that she paid for all the "ungrateful poor people" who accepts welfare.
Her receiving social aid is definitely not because her financial situation fell under the government law proposed poverty line. No siree, she's just getting back what the governments robbed of her. All her rich friends definitely don't help each other.
"and then he lectured the jury about his inalienable rights and then everyone clapped!"
It was so moving they forgot about property rights. The most central right upon which capitalism stands.
@@chazdomingo475 Property is theft.
@ElyC West From humanity.
@@chazdomingo475 His intellectual property was stollen.
@@harboguy flew over their head
The ending kinda reads like a "and then everyone clapped" post lol
That’s how you know it was a bunch of bs
Its an objectivist fantasy, so yeah
What’s remarkable is that I keep seeing this same statement in the comments.. verbatim. Ironic because this proves Ayn Rands theory that most people are just sheep. They lack the ability or courage to think for themselves so they just follow mindlessly. Unbelievable!
Angel D you’re dismissing any opinion that isn’t yours by saying they’re all sheep. Are you not being hypocritical by blindly following Rands’ ideology and not thinking for yourself?
“and then everone clapped” is a fucking meme. It’s not that surprising a lot of people draw comparisons to that with this plot’s ending, because just like the meme the ending is pretentious. The MC gets rewarded for blowing up a building. That is absurd. You can’t deny that man.
@@angeld7799 lmao its a well known joke, i thought of it before looking at the comments. calm down my dude.
As an economics major with a Master's degree, I feel safe telling you that you have economic intuition at least as strong as most actual economists. You may not have the mathematical training, but knowing to much about the mathematical models can often make one ignorant to phenomena that those models don't predict.
Hence why economic majors seldomly make good traders. Good traders require high IQ things that cannot be learnt like ability to think fast, and recognise patterns and trends.
"You will guarantee that it will be built exactly as I design it."
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of contractors and engineers cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced...
Every time an architect designs a building, an engineer will tell them why it won't work.
@@HappyBeezerStudios and the contractor says, "yeah, we could use that material, but it's gonna cost you 10 times as much."
But that's not what happened with Roark's work. His work was perfect. It was practical and cheap. If a change is made it would no longer be so.
Rand didn't mean selfish, she meant shellfish. They live in a hierarchy.
Are you referring to her missing manuscript "The Lobsterhead"?
Thanks bro, made my day!
afvahkevha I SPIT OUT MY TEA
If you're allergic to seafood you would be deadfish.
Going back into my shell now, to consider the Lobsterhead.
How the hell did I just listen to you talk about a book I'm never going to read for forty minutes at 2 am on a Saturday morning when I could be playing as gonk droid in Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga.
Well done.
Same
Same
Gonk
It's a good book. That is to say, at *minimum* it has masterful passages.
no wonder youre poor
Another glaring problem with this story is that an architect who is too arrogant and self-absorbed to consider anyone else's input wouldn't have learned enough to get good at his craft in the first place. This isn't just a simple plot hole, either; it highlights a major flaw in Rand's thinking. Nobody is an island. In order for the successful people in her stories to accomplish anything, they need the support of a civilization around them, including people to teach them. Everybody plays a part, not just the few who get all the glory.
Good thinking
I hadn’t considered that
Howard Roark had Henry Cameron from the beginning, and then Roger Enright believed in him a lot. There was also the chance of being chosen to build a countryside holiday resort... because the group who wanted to build it wanted THE PROJECT TO FAIL, as they had oversold shares in the project. That is the biggest professional (and uncontrolable) detail that you can imagine.
Much like with communism and Christianity (both of which Rand condemned), Rand's views are based on striving for an impossible ideal much like aiming for "communist man" or a "godly life". For her it's the "uncompromising individualist." Although it's impossible to reach that ideal completely, it's still impressive to see people inch closer and closer towards it. Howard Roark is intended to be a radical caricature of that mythos for the sake of advancing the theme rather than an exact representation of how people are. What you said is correct as far as it goes but it doesn't necessarily invalidate the moral of the story in my opinion.
"Another glaring problem with this story is that an architect who is too arrogant and self-absorbed to consider anyone else's input wouldn't have learned enough to get good at his craft in the first place."
In his interaction with the Dean, we get to know that the Dean saw no issues with his capability as an architect. We even see a positive evaluation of his skills in the more technical subjects of architecture. Additionally, the reason he seeks out a job under Henry Cameron is precisely because he's aware he has a lot to learn from him.
I'd like to make a general point: No amount of reading can force a mind to understand. You have to be honest enough to actually want to understand it. Consider re-reading the book alongside the discussion series below.
ruclips.net/p/PLqsoWxJ-qmMtBJfasPfoaeudsgLcYFm6z
And check out this playlist after finishing the book
ruclips.net/p/PLqsoWxJ-qmMtzaXZymt6E9DPUufpehKqJ
If you won't re-read the book, consider watching the videos anyway.
@@llamasarus1 "Rand's views are based on striving for an impossible ideal much like aiming for "communist man" or a "godly life". For her it's the "uncompromising individualist.""
That's not true. Ayn Rand explicitly rejects the notion of an impossible ideal. Here are two talks specifically on this topic.
ruclips.net/video/L3vR6fi8n0Q/видео.html&ab_channel=AynRandInstitute
ruclips.net/video/-t_IUk4T45A/видео.html&ab_channel=AynRandInstitute
I also read the Fountainhead when I was 18 ... and I found the story of Roark, willing to risk everything for his art, not kowtowing to the social elite, not "selling out" ... it was inspiring to me. It was a good book with good characters ... and if you read it as a metaphor or a myth (as I did) then I think the book does more good than harm.
But I didn't know anything about Rand's politics or beliefs when I was 18. And reading the book as an adult I found all the characters to be very one-dimensional and unrealistic ... the story was overly idealized and hard to take seriously. But then ... I had grown up and saw that the world was a complicated place and nothing is black and white.
“Prosperity Gospel for Atheists” is one of the greatest descriptive explanations I’ve ever heard.
More like, you got one life. Make the most out of it and achieve your happiness as long as you do not violate anyones individual rights.
@@johngalt4569 I mean, as summaries go that's extremely unhelpful. There are tons of people who are very left-of-center and who hate Rand's social and economic policies, but agree with that vague platitude.
@@johngalt4569: Nobody I know would disagree with that statement, it's very agreeable, but too vague to be that useful, much less a fucking base for goverment.
@@phantomkitten73 Exactly it speaks to reason, individual rights does not mean taking the private property of individuals to redistribute to other individuals, both left & right do that. No one should bail out anyone. Taxpayers should not bail out banks. Business owners should also not have to have their wealth taken away. Individual rights applies to all. Rich, Poor, Any Race etc. That is what Rand is about. I suspect a lot of people criticize her to discredit her so they do not find out how wrong they actually are or how much they truly agree with her.
@@johngalt4569 Rand was also totally on board with cashing in those sweet welfare checks as soon as she got sick. Oh and the genocide of Native Americans, which she defended
You kinda remind me of Lindsey Ellis. No matter how odd the topic you cover may seem, I never regret watching your videos because they are so insightful and deep.
This is high praise indeed. And I agree.
Oh no doubt. Serge and Lindsey are some of my absolute favorite philosophers!!!
Well said, Ol' Sport!
This might get me hate. But I had to stop watching Lindsey Ellis b/c of her accusations against Johnny Depp and siding with Amber Heard on their domestic troubles. She gives an in-depth reason why on her pirates of the Caribbean breakdown and blames Johnny Depp.
Not to mention I'd give either of them a baby to abort.
Here's the thing: If the book had been honest with itself, the protagonist would've been convicted for the crimes he *unquestionably* commited and would've gone to prison with his head held high, proud that he had stuck to his convictions with unwavering resolve. But instead, Rand wanted to have her cake and eat it too, on one hand spouting the importance of being true to yourself irrespective of the consequences or what society will think of you, while on the other having the protagonist weasel away of the consequences of his actions.
Thing is, for all her grandstanding, Rand cared *very much* what other people thought of her, and she wanted people to think she was right.
As an architect, it hurts my soul that the main reference for the profession people have are The Fountainhead - imagine if Dr. Frankenstein was the only example of a surgeon people were shown in media - Howard Roark is THAT far off from how an architect actually practices lol
Now I'm imagining an architect that designs a building out of parts from various abandoned buildings.
Lol, but it is exactly what the whole book was about. Him against the entire architectural community.
@@PeixeKing It's not "playing God," it's... recycling?
You give surgeons that good of a name?
Is Ted from How I Met Your Mother a more or less accurate depiction of an architect?
Regarding the final few minutes of the video: Absolutely, such books as hers have a right to exist, be read, and not be burned. But they must not be placed on the shelf labeled “above criticism.”
Only the Quran is above criticism
@@markefreet1522 Well...
Should there even be a shelf labeled "above criticism"?
@@FanboyFilms yep, it's next to "below criticism", "next to criticism", "parrallel to criticism" etc...
@@markefreet1522 Nothing is above criticism
I can't tell if the concept of a pregnant Reagan is the best or worst part of this video.
The best part is the rather well-supported assertion that Ayn Rand lacks the insight to understand the most interesting interpretation of her own work.
Or the implication that he's pregnant for longer than a year. :D
@@claudis.4015 Chinese mythologic hero Nezha was said to have stayed in his mother's womb for three years... 👀
“I always thought it quaint, and rather touching, that there is in America a movement that thinks people are not yet selfish enough…. It’s somewhat refreshing to meet people who manage to get through their day actually believing that.” Christopher Hitchens on Objectivists
That quote seems reasonable at first, until you contemplate the alternative to selfishness--which is suicide.
Shozbot who thinks that?
@@aswiftshift5229
Objectivists think that. To be specific, a person who is ^consistently^ selfless is suicidal. Most people do not practice it consistently, however. Most people are satisfied with merely hindering their life rather than ending it entirely. I personally think that a human should be consistently selfish. But what does a selfish person do? He works, plays, makes friends, trades values, respects his neighbors. If everybody was selfish, the world would be a much better place.
The problem is that people who live openly selfish are regarded as rude or bad persons. Where as people who are always kind, secretly always want something in return and feel morally superior. So by being kind the get a social value out of it. Which is in the end just Selfishness in another form. But it's regarded as noble because they hide their real motives
@@MonotoniTV Yeah, I’ve heard that crap before, but it is more the projection of someone so selfish they cannot imagine acting outside of immediate self interest. Eventually you have to look at the macroscopic view: a society in which people regularly put the interests of others ahead of their own - be it out of general sense of bonhomie or to flatter their own vanity about being a good person - is going to work a lot better than one comprised of cutthroat selfish assholes doing whatever it takes to get what they want. You can call altruism a slave morality all you like, but objectivism is just the motivational speeches given to the low level workers of the pyramid scheme.
The thing that really grinds my gears is that Rand’s point would’ve come across a lot better if she chose a smaller industry like…oh idk publishing. In publishing, books are often encouraged to be as cookie cutter as possible to make bank. Think of all the thousands of YA books after the Hunger Games. Or the adult high fantasy books after GOT. Writing is also a low manpower job, where there’s maybe an editor, but the rest is the author’s vision. And that vision is encouraged to be mowed over to emulate the other popular genres. Or even to capitalize on nostalgia, what with all the sequels and Ready Player One sort books/media coming out. Idk maybe Roarke could’ve been like an aspiring author that works as a ghostwriter and his story could’ve been a commentary on how creative industries turn into a grind house to make money and that leads to art getting stale and repetitive and focused on feeding the masses the exact same thing over and over again for the sake of making money and stifle actual creativity and wow I’m just rewriting this book now.
No it had to be something concrete not abstract.
I’m probably not your typical subscriber (a 72 year old male) but I must say this is the best analysis of Ayn Rand’s work I’ve ever heard. If she’s still assigned reading anywhere your critique should be a required part of any follow-up discussion.
I first saw The Fountainhead in the 1970’s when I was in my twenties. At the time I had never heard of Ayn Rand, I just liked old movies and this one had Gary Cooper and Patricia Neil so how could I go wrong? But when it was over I wondered how this pile of garbage ever got made. Unlike you I took it all literally (I probably wasn’t sophisticated enough to see it as a metaphor) and it’s a good thing I wasn’t on that jury or he’d still be doing time. There wasn’t one sympathetic character in the whole movie and the arrogance and recklessness of the ‘hero’ was astonishing to me. Needless to say upon learning who Ayn Rand was and what she was about I never became a fan. What’s disturbing to me now is that many of our political leaders are.
Anyway, good job and I wish you much success in your own artistic enterprises.
I'm a high school teacher in Texas, and _Anthem_ is still on our English curriculum. Also, our graduating seniors always see the _Fountainhead_ essay-writing context when they look at scholarships every year.
I'm a huge fan of the Canadian rock band Rush, who in their youth were way into Rand. And it's kind of sad to see them labeled as "that Objectivist band" when Neil very clearly renounced hte idea of Objectivism later in their career ("Territories," "Roll the Bones," or "The Color of Right" on their later albums could never be written by an Objectivist, but they were at their most popular when they did "Anthem" and "2112," which are definitely Objectivist works, and so that part of Neil's philosophical development was flash-frozen for future listeners). It really is sad how our youthful fascination with something can really taint our worldviews, even after we grow out of those foolish ideas.
@Tread Knought objectivism goes way beyond self respect.
Have you ever read any of Rand's essays? That's actually what helped me get out of the cult. in one of her essays or speeches, I don't remember exactly which, she describes the ideal person and I realized that her ideal person was indistinguishable from a sociopath.
@Time Warp : As long as you do not initiate aggression, is it a bad thing?
ok boomer
@@HollowGolem ok boomer
Great video as always! It made me think of a traditional custom of where I am from (Mali); When you get a new job, you split your first paycheck to friends and family members who supported you/help raise you. It's a humbling way to pay respect towards those that helped you reach success and serves as a reminder that you didn't get to where you are alone. It's why I have always found the "self-made" label completely nonsensical!
I'm not sure Ms. Rand would condemn that custom. Don't confuse her with a caricature of her.
@@zapazap Don't read her books, either. Because those definitely wouldn't approve of that tradition.
I know Roark is only a fictional character, but in his case it is true. Not only did he receive no help, people were actively hindering him.
@@zapazap there’s other people forming a caricature of her, and there’s the views she expressed herself through the themes of her work
@@AshDemonYoung : Of what tradition? I did not mention any tradition.
Would you care to rephrase your advice to me?
"What do you think of Ayn Rand?" "I don't think of her at all."
EVERYONE SHOULD JUST PLAY BIOSHOCK. It is litteraly THE BEST deconstruction of Rand's philosophies, and illustrates why they would fail dramatically if given the opportunity to even exist in societies.
One of my favorite “wish I’d said it”:
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year-old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
-John Rogers
I read Atlas Shrugged when I was 14 and not Lord of the Rings. I regret my decision.
@@merrittanimation7721 Should have read both. Why act like it is always a "one-or-the-other" scenario? Why be so, so...so objectivist about this novel? Have you read it? Does someone have to conform to what they read? Can one possibly...just possibly...be inspired without the aim of emulation, instead to just begin to understand "the other's" ideological underpinnings a little better? Why study a map before one enters an unknown territory and/or attempt to describe the landscape without having been there? If you take the character of Roark, regarding his artistic motivation, and absorb that, I see nothing that equals the hate for the novel regarding that aspect.
Haha!!!
Gotta repost that.
@@skiphoffenflaven8004 In my defense I also used my time to read the Dune series instead of Lord of the Rings, a decision I do not regret but did take about as long as it took me to read Atlas Shrugged.
I find it amusing that you brought up Frank Loyd Wright because the first image you showed of his buildings, Fallingwater, is unstable due to the concrete cantilevered balconies not being properly reinforced. A beautiful building that isn't particularly practical. Some deep levels of irony going on there.
Oh, shit! I had no idea!
@@coldcrashpictures As someone who went to engineering school (though I only took a few civil engineering classes), with friends and family who work in construction, the whole Roark being an architect thing was a non-starter for me. My friends and family openly joke about how architects will bring you the most beautiful designs around, and it's your job as the engineer to tell them that most of it isn't possible, whether by physics or materials or timeline or budget. It's unlikely that any new style of building built will ever be built well if a single architect is the only one who has any say in the design. This kind of thing is hammered into engineers: I doubt there is a single civil engineer in North America who hasn't studied the Hyatt Regency walkway collapse [ ruclips.net/video/VnvGwFegbC8/видео.html ] or the 1940 Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse [ ruclips.net/video/qbOjxPCfaFk/видео.html ]. Buildings, big ones especially, aren't designed willy-nilly. It's not that architects know nothing or are completely unreasonable, but it's ignorant to believe that a lone architect can design a skyscraper and have it brought into the world according to their plans exactly.
I'm sure guidelines were looser at the time Rand wrote the novel, but it's just too painful for me to take seriously: a delusional architect thinking he knows better than the people whose jobs it is to verify his designs and make them safer, more practical, or more cost-effective. And to then have the gall to claim that he and he alone designed the building, when in reality the designs should have gone through a multi-step editorial process no matter what he did.
@@coldcrashpictures You have the most annoying viewers. They're all smarter than Ayn Rand, Frank Loyd Wright, and anyone you can name. Meanwhile they're just repeating facts somebody else said. Kinda like your video. Not even a Rand fan but god you guys are smug ucks.
The story I read was that an engineer at the time of construction told FLW that the unsupported span was too long and insisted (and/or convinced the Owner) that a supporting wall be placed underneath. FLW built the wall...but left the top row of bricks off. It took decades, but finally the structure in question DID sag and required work when they did a major restoration.
FLW was on the bleeding edge of building technology...which wasn't very far along in his heyday, so he gambled and lost a lot. The corner windows on Fallingwater couldn't be made weather-tight using the technology of the time and consequently leaked, as did the glass tube clerestories at the Johnson Wax building. He grated on people and clearly had a huge ego. However, he was an innovator and it takes people like him to exist to push the envelope and advance the profession, AND strike a chord with the public to accept these crazy new ideas. I would certainly never have wanted to work for him - especially since many PAID for the honor of doing so.
@@El_Rey_247 You're right. It is absolutely inconceivable today from a legal/contractual standpoint that an architect could do everything on a project. Even in an interior remodel, he'd need to hire a Mechanical and Electrical Engineer - and if it was very small (say under 1500 gsf) he'd still require a Master Electrician or Mechanicalman to pull a permit.
And even if he were competent to practice every design discipline himself (I have known a couple of Architect-Engineers, but only one who actually practiced all disciplines) it would be inadvisable, since the legal liability for the whole project is on him (well, his company but also his professional license). It is far, far more typical to spread that responsibility out among specialized design professionals, who are each individually and legally liable for their portion of the work.
It's insulting my own kind but I do it all the time, so indeed: architects are the LAST people you'd consult on how to save money, and they do a piss-poor job of coordinating the other disciplines, and they refuse stubbornly to turn loose of some design idea they think is particularly awesome, no matter the level of engineering that has to be applied to make it work.
When Ayn Rand wrote "The Fountainhead" in 1943 however, there were still Master Builders, and architects learned their trade through apprenticeship much more than college. This included knowledge in building trades and engineering. I worked on a large Temple designed by Henry Trost in probably 1910. The sets of plans was less than twenty pages and contained almost no detail compared to a modern set of plans regarding the structure - most detail was of the decorative elements. It was understood that Mr. Trost or his associates would be on jobsite continually and guide the construction of the building. Modern lawsuit making and permitting was of course not where it is today, and artisans and tradesmen were said to be far more independent and skilled than their modern counterparts - plus the range of building technology they were dealing with was limited to the very basics, which by that time were well understood.
"Objectivism is Prosperity Gospel for atheists." LOL!!! Having grown up in Prosperity Gospel churches, that is the most hilariously apt comparison I have ever seen. You win *all* the Internets.
"No, what I would do, if I absolutely had to adapt The Fountainhead to film..."
Me: Please say muppets please say muppets please say muppets.
...
Oh, I guess your idea is good, too.
"hp Lovecraft. I don't even have to say what his problem is" yeah you can't even say the name of his cat lol
Hard-R-Man was a good kitty!
@@Repus85 That wasn't the name of his cat.
He wasted a golden opportunity by not naming it H.P. Lovecat. Just saying. It’d also not be wildly racist, which would be a bonus feature.
doesn't even matter he got the cat pre-named, he didn't see anything wrong with it to change it.
Thanks for making me google that ... fuck I didn’t need to know ...
My fiance was JUST saying on Thursday how he wishes someone would articulate their thoughts on Ayn Rand more than just "she's bad I hate her". And then we got a notice about this video! This was a great analysis and education on her belief system. Thank you for sharing!! Please do film a Greta Garbo video as well.
Let's be honest...Ayn Rand's whole career is just her simping for America.
Well she did move here because America offered her a better life. Who would you rather she praised, Russia?
@@verbena208 Yeah definitely agree with you. But she sure as hell made sure to be super biased in her work. You could say she was just a cog in the cold war machine. Eveyone at that time was either supporting Communism or Capitalism. No one was thinking critically about either, which we should all be doing.
@@kemi9403 I agree though I will say that Rand was not a fan of all capitalism. Chronie captalism, which runs on backroom deals and favor-mongering was something she was always critical of. Yeah she was biased but it was because she had seen the Soviet system at work and knew how poor a system it was.
@@verbena208 Yeah true.
Well, that's not UNtruth
Ayn Rands life:
- Parents lost wealth and status to state seizure
- She has to go to school with everyone else
- Isn't able to to socialise (maybe the parents fault)
- never grows out of the egoistic child phase
- goes to the USA
- writes about how egoism is everything
- gets used for her eloquence, to promote egoism
- gets ill
- nobody cares
- dies poor and without anyone caring for her
- But they are all at her funeral, so that's that~
It's just ... it sound so wasted for a human life. Like she never had the chance to be human.
There are many people like her. Who thought that they had everything figured out and died with their view unchallenged. It's tragic because they have condemned themselves to unhappiness because they didn't get an opportuniy to acknowledge the complexity of life and relationships and saw it as simply black and white.
Think of all the closeted homesexuals, the women who believe their purpose is to serve a man, the exploited members of family who buy in their parents' gaslighting.
It's a tragedy
The Fountainhead is my guiltiest of guilty pleasures. I love it *because* it's so utterly batshit, filled with characters who are universally terrible human beings, getting into weird melodramatic situations due to their weird melodramatic minds that work nothing like the minds of actual people. (Also, it's surprisingly funny - Rand did have a gift for snark.) And the best part is, every time I reread it, I discover new depths to its batshitness, which just makes me love it even more.
.
I mean, god help anyone who actually takes it seriously, but as the ultimate nonironic ironic read it's hard to beat.
Check out _Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality._ It's by Eliezer Yudkowsky, who goes by "LessWrong." He's another yahoo who seems to think that he has the secret to "rationality." His philosophy does touch on some interesting aspects, but then he wanders off into transhumanism, AI, the singularity...and the merits of racism.
Oh, and then there's Roko's Basilisk. It involves an AI who then punishes people who failed to help bring about the AI in the first place...and if you're already dead, it creates a simulation of you to then punish. It does this because it is a beneficial and good AI that can help save humanity and every day that it does not exist is a day when people it could have saved are left to suffer and thus there is a moral imperative to ensure that it gets created and those who stand in the way must be punished for doing so.
And now that you know about it, you will also be punished by the basilisk because you aren't helping to create it.
At any rate, I'm making my way through _HPatMoR_ and every single person in this monstrosity of a fanfic is an utter garbage person. Including Harry Potter. There are some interesting digs at the stupidity of the Wizarding World that Rowling created (the bit about how nobody in the WW has heard of "arbitrage" and thus Harry has an idea of leveraging the different exchange rates of gold/silver between the WW and Muggle World and making a fortune) as well as some philosophical forays into understanding motivations, but it dances so close to psychopathy that I'm reading to watch the lovely train wreck of moral destruction than my hopes that it was mostly a take on, "What if someone who actually understood anything about science were to visit the Wizarding World and apply it there?"
@@dhwyll No kidding, Eliezer Yudkowsky makes me want to throw up my own skeleton. And his fic gets worshipped by a lot of people too! It drives me bonkers. A lot of transhumanists in general have that same vibe too, where they actually have a lot of knowledge and there's some merit to what they're saying...
But then it dives headfirst into this batshit worldview where 'the singularity is coming', almost like it's the second coming of Christ or something, and they worship and prepare for it and evangelize it, with zero regard for both the feelings of people around them and regards to the current state of science (we're still a looooong way to making an AI anywhere close to human intelligence, nevermind above it, and even the term 'above' and 'intelligence' are wrongly used and asdfafafsdaa...)
Sorry for the word salad. This topic has been a pet peeve of mine for a while, and people don't seem to be paying much attention to it? Except for the transhumanist weirdos, who pay WAY too much attention to it. Just glad someone else besides me hate-read that fanfic.
I love HPMOR both ironically and unironically. I think the original HP characters are little shits anyway, now we add an even bigger superiority complex. The idea is great, the morals are stupid, some parts were really funny and the end was like WTF. Remember how there was the part where you were supposed to stop reading and think about the solution to a problem, and then the solution was absolutely wild and completely stupid? But there were also some funny lines that made me really enjoy it, a lot.
Autistic minds work like this though, helped me a lot. Yea I might not be that altruistic being, but I got a job, an income and a girlfriend. Not many autistic people can say so, at least not the ones who quit highschool and never finished ANY education. I only care about Rand, because her writing helped me deal with this world, it made me a person, not a disease. That’s all that counts
@@Beersandsmokes you were always a person. As a fellow autistic person, congrats on the success but YOU WERE ALWAYS A PERSON. I hope you would agree that it’s downright evil to say that people who aren’t productive (especially when it’s due to disability) are “diseases”- so don’t say it about yourself!
In regards to Barbara Stanwyck, I think where you are going is: She made it big, 999 others did not. It's great that she became well known, popular and wealthy. That is true of any of the big stars. But for every one of them there are hundreds of actors/entertainers who struggle, work hard but achieve little success. Yes, true survivor bias. Who knows if she ever understood that.
Over the years I've encountered numerous Objectivists and always got the same line: "When Rand used the word "Selfishness," she didn't mean selfishness." Yes, she did. She knew English well enough that she chose that word specifically. Words have meanings, dictionaries and encyclopedias exist for a reason, and they are all pretty standardized. The word "selfishness" well describes Rand's use of it. Hers is a "Greed is good" and "Hell with you, I want it all" ideology.
There are two important facts about Rand one needs to understand her philosophy and point of view.
A. She was born and raised in Russia. Her father was a pharmacist who had his store taken away from him, twice. This destroyed her. This was the trauma that caused her to hate any and all government. She came to believe that all governments are the same, equal and all terrible. The fact that they are not all the same, nor equal, eluded her to her dying days. Russia of the 1910s and 20s was a terrible place to be. It's quite understandable that she would want to, and did, leave. The American government wasn't perfect either. But it sure was better than Russia.
B. Rand never had any children and her marriage was an open one. Nothing wrong with either of these points, but it means that she was never responsible for another human being. She never had to care for a helpless or weak person. One doesn't need to have children to understand the utter bullshit that is absolute greed and selfishness, but it helps. That children, spouses and society in general makes demands on us is a given. Rand never felt or understood this.
Fact is, we live in a modern society. We don't live in caveman times or even a "Conan the Barbarian" society. Some people are weak, some people are strong. We find it moral to allow the weak to live a decent life, or at least have the option to. One of the roles of government is to protect and support those less well off. Does a man deserve the rewards of his work? Yes. Not 100% of it though. There is a place for government, which includes welfare and public services. We all benefit from not having unclaimed corpses pile up in the streets.
Agreed, and then there's the fact that even the individual human doesn't have a monolithic experience. Rand's ideal man might very well go through a depression or injury and old age, and he would be glad then to accept the help of social safety nets.
I was in my late teens when I read Rand, and the only reaction to her books that I now remember having was "But what about stupid people? Don't they get to have any happiness?" Oh, and that her prose was turgid.
yeah as someone who's a parent in a monogamous marriage i think your second take is kinda dumb ngl. like? parenthood/ relationships arent some magic thing that makes you all of the sudden understand how to care for others. i liked ur point about her trauma but i think it's a dumb thing to say "oh yes she never learned to care for others because she never had kids and was in an open marriage" like???? i knew how to care for others before I was married/ a parent??? and tbh being a parent almost makes me feel more selfish cause i have a little one always demanding something from me, and i dont always like giving up the things i like to satisfy someone else's wants/needs. yours is a tired idea that kinda needs to go cause like, some of the most selfless, kind, and giving people ive ever met are single/childless. also??? the idea that people in open relationships dont have to be responsible to their partners is the dumbest shit like???????????? bruh have you ever even educated yourself on how those relationships work??? dslkfjasldkfasdlkjf yes they fucking are responsible and shit like? communication is a real thing thank you. tbh, i really like listening to poly-amorous podcasts about how to manage healthy communication and it's helped me with my spouse as well so idk.
tdlr: dont be stupid- she wasn't selfish because she didnt care for anyone. she was selfish because she wanted to be. the only difference between me and someone who is in an open relationship/ childless is that they are in an open relationship and childless. We could both be selfish or both be giving, it doesnt matter. your take is archaic and stupid 100%
@@salemsmith7085 You missed the line in the OP where they say one doesnt need to have kids etc to understand but it helps.
@@salemsmith7085 please read people’s comments in full before commenting a giant rant. You misunderstood their comment, that wasn’t their entire take, and whether or not you agree with that small part of their argument doesn’t necessarily devalue the rest of it.
- I always thought Toohey was an interesting idea for a villain. He could never be great, so he uses his above average wits to make people treasure the mediocre.
- I never really understood Wynand.
- Objectivism is an unearned name. It's like if I started a religion and called it Truecorrectrealgodism.
I loved The Fountainhead for what I interpreted it as - not to let the opinions of others affect you and do what you love. I was excited to read more of her work so I read Atlas Shrugged next. That was a mistake.
I loved both of them lol
I don’t think we should burn Ayn Rand, but I do think it should not be taught without analysis to impressionable children in high school by substitute teachers.
I'm amazed at this all. I've been surrounded by objectivism my entire life and never understood where it was coming from. It's nihilism.
As a teacher I was shocked he was asked to read this in a public school. If my kid was carrying around a copy of Atlas Shrugged I would hope a teacher would smack that book out of their hands and save them a world of trouble.
I think we should probably just throw the books out and stop treating them like they are worth our time or effort.
Tbh the shortcomings of Rand are so goddamn obvious that if a highschooler doesn't see them they should be learning how fixing cars or deepwater welding instead of wasting time on literature classes.
Analysis by who? A liberal establishment teacher with an agenda?
Literally every arrogant architecture student. As an architecture graduate, I should know.
Literally FLW - but how many FLWs can the real world support? And would they really want to walk the path he did, if they even could?
I was the architecture student that just wanted to make a decent living on something art related lmao.
@@ultimadum7785 And did you succeed in realising that goal? Or are you still working towards it?
@@ninawth well I ended up switching my major to graphic design because I felt like I wasn't even being creative in that field. I was basically just following a bunch of rules and guidelines and it was too restrictive for me. I'm still in school, so I guess I'll know if it worked out If I can get a decent job after all this.
For me the biggest refutation of her take on creativity is meme culture: it’s literally a collaborative body of art built entirely on repeating and interpreting people around you and yet it’s constantly producing the most bonkers, out-there works you couldn’t even imagine
respectfully, if this is the biggest refutation, then there is little refutation to Rand's work out there
A bit ridiculous to call memes 'works'.
@@Pantano63 I mean probably, but people make entire livings doing way more ridiculous stuff than that, like I know someone who washes horses’ dicks for a living
@@alexemy221 That sounds like hard work, if you know what I mean.
Its almost like humans work by sharing what they have with one another
Rand has always occupied a weird, nostalgic place with me as I had read the Fountainhead as a kid and it happened to spark an early interest in philosophy in general. However, I always noticed that any other thinker that I admired really had no respect for her views at all and most dismissed her work as quasi-philosophic at best. Nevertheless, I do think that many of her basic themes (especially those from earlier works like the Fountainhead) can be very positive when integrated into a larger world view, any personal hypocrisy on her part has nothing to do with this. Not every novel has to be the Brothers Karamozov to deal with important concepts, and ideas do not necessarily need to be complex to be true. If you happen to come away with an increased desire to take pride in your work and a decreased inclination to cynically manipulate people then no harm done. The obvious thing to note is that Rand herself despised most other major philosophers, ancient and modern and viewed their work as counterproductive and harmful, this can potentially encourage people to keep within a bubble if they admire her a bit too much.
You were going through part one and I was thinking "Did I read a different book than he did?"
I had read Atlas Shrugged first so when I read The Fountainhead, all I saw was how she used the story to illustrate her philosophy. There were no characters, there were just cardboard cutouts.
I LOVE the idea of having everyone act out the story without explaining their motivations.
Looking back, the Fountain Head reminds me of one those posts on reddit that end with "and then everyone clapped" it's pretentious and self congratulatory thinking it's better than everyone else.
That is All of Rand Book endings (Especially Atlas Shrugged)
Well the book and theory is actually brilliant! It’s bold and original in a world where everything and everyone else only copy’s each other. It lays out a blueprint for how the perfect man or women would be if they existed, where everything and everyone else is only concerned with mediocrity. I am unsure why you think it’s pretentious and self congratulatory because you provide no examples or details to support your opinion.
Angel D the dude blew up a building after getting pissy that they changed his design. He is acquitted of any wrong doing by giving a speech about artistic integrity. Architecture isn’t a selfish artform, you don’t design buildings for yourself. That whole analogy for artistic freedom doesn’t work for an architect.
Not only is that absurd and unrealistic, but his acquittal is undeserved. He blatantly admits his crimes, yet because he is “ala struggling artiste” he’s given a free pass for blowing up a building. It’s the equivalent of “and then everyone clapped” because it’s so unrealistic and cringe.
@@linzlsleepy1627 ugh as much as I consider her philosophy to be partially invoking, this is true.
@@angeld7799 It's about an architect who believes the point of buildings is to stoke the ego of the person who designed them rather than for people to actually live in
every single thing i've heard from ayn rand's words has been in favor of freedom over governmentally or socially demanded "charity" her observation that "if everyone is forced to be charitable then charity ceases to exist. you're only doing what is expected of you, and not doing so out of the goodness of your heart" is absolutely true. then I see people in this comment section and elsewhere mutating her rejection of the "absolute good of altruism" as being some kind of ultra selfish, "you should never be charitable" nonsense. totally missing the point. being charitable is good and ayn rand never denies the goodness of charity and selflessness when they are done BY CHOICE. it is only when people are forcibly compelled to do these things that in her opinion does it become perverse and evil.
I'm about 100~ pages through Altas Shrugged rn, its girthy but definently thought provoking. One of the main reasons I wanted to read it is because of the verbal distain for Rand - but after seeing a few interviews with her and getting into the book as I am right now it's sort of shown how much she does care for charitable stuff - when done in choice. Because to personally come to the decision that you would like to help others because you feel that desire, irrellevant to pressure means it's all the more impactful/significant of an act. And people who believe that they gain nothing from being charitable or demand it sort of jump the point of being charitable in the first place.
well that fucking changes everything doesn't it
it excuses rægan and thätcher and all the rest
I had a teacher in college who talked about how celebrities like to say they worked really hard and that's how they got where they are. However, while they did work hard, it did help that they had the time to practice because they lived in a stable home or they had a family member who threw some money down to help them. It is possible that there would've been more people who could've done X, if only they had the money to even do X in the first place.
everything i learn about ayn rand confounds me
She was a trip
Have you read/seen The Passion of Ayn Rand?
@@ShirDeutch i have not but helen mirren was ayn rand ????
@@elderbrick6459 yes. It's weird.
@Wortblossom I don't. She was an asshole who inspired more assholes. Theres a difference between not living for others and simply declaring yourself superior to others and using and abusing them for your own gain.
My 12th grade english teacher had us read Anthem instead, he said "this is just like everything else Ayn Rand has written except shorter" I had the same thoughts as you that maybe she meant it a certain way, and I was totally wrong, I felt kind of dirty for initially enjoying the story.
I read anthem in tenth grade English and initially enjoyed the story, but felt so disgusted when the ending rolled around and the main character "self-actualized" into an egoist and sexist. I also think my entire class (including myself) was to young to fully understand the political implications of the text.
i unfortunately was forced to read both...
What was wrong with Anthem, upon reflection?
@@zapazap I think it was more of I didn't realize that , like in fountain head that she thought the individual was above everything. I read it more as an 18 year old who thought "I want to be different I want to be who I want to be not what people expect me to be" not realizing that what she meant was more of not just having your own self identity but more of how she didn't like collectivism and how it seemed like she was against anyone helping others
@/X/EN no, but I'm very anti capitalist and didn't realize at the beginning that her messages are ultra anti altruism and very pro capitalism so i felt like enjoying the beginning of the story was against what I believe in. I believe helping others is really important
I think the wildest thing about her ideologies is that somehow you’re supposed to be absolutely independent of anyone else, but somehow maintain civility
That is pretty wild...as in wildly inaccurate. There's nothing about her ideology that says you must be "absolutely independent", whatever that means. We are individuals who do better as a member of a society when our rights are respected, property is protected, and peaceful trade rather than theft and force are normal. When these things - among others - do not exist you *_are_* better off going it alone.
@@A_friend_of_Aristotle you're talking about the person who literally considered altruism a moral failing. Rand's ideology is the ideology of not only a sociopath but a sociopath who has absolutely no understanding or comprehension of how society operates
😂😂😂
"Now you know why I blew up a whole building a whole bunch of people worked on and was supposed to house the disenfranchised, which will likely never be rebuilt because money. Viva el individualismo!"
when i was around 14 i saw a theatre production of the fountainhead. the set was a 2 storey high, tilted, golden dollar sign that rotated to show different rooms in its base. we were not being subtle that day.
That’s amazing
10/10 if Rand doesn’t have to be subtle why shouldn’t anyone else
But that's faithful to Rand's own beliefs, you gotta admit.
It can be a good read if taken metaphorically, but if followed as a life-plan its a recipe for making a “classic asshole.”
Yeah, you can like Rand's books as long as you keep her dead, and consider that her opinion does not matter.
@@jonkeuviuhc1641 why, by what standard?
So it’s good advice metaphorically but not literally? How is that possible? Rand writes about the ideal man. His characteristics are to be taken as literal advice (rational thinking, passion and reverence for ones own interests and work etc.)
Classic asshole? That’s more of a judgment of how others would see you, it says nothing of the true character of the person you would actually be.
@@jonkeuviuhc1641 Why does her opinion not matter? You would think such a strong statement would be supported with more details. Is it because her opinions are not popular? Most ppl are too weak minded to think for themselves so they follow the crowd like hopeless sheep.
Angel D so you’re saying it’s good advice to blow up a building when people change your architecture plans, and you’re not even in charge of the building project?
Because that’s what literally happens in the plot. To follow this advice *literally* is to become a terrorist in the name of “artistic integrity” or whatever shit you wanna believe in. If you don’t believe that’s good advice, then that’s how good metaphorical but not literal advice is possible.
Even then, that’s assuming the metaphorical advice is good.
It’s an understatement how we keep thinking of all when even the self doesn’t exist. Soon enough we will discover that without knowing the self, the collective will collapse. The film expresses the importance of self knowledge while keeping one’s goals unbroken regardless of outside factors.
I rarely see anyone discuss how her works reflect her observations about her experiences with the culture of the USSR. Whenever I read her books, I rarely see her work as necessarily being about the glorification of the protagonist's abilities , but rather as standing as a foil against the absolutely destructive mindsets that collectivism fostered in her home country.
exactly
The first flaw that jumps out me about the plot of The Fountainhead is that the main character is an architect. An architect isn't designing buildings for himself (unless he designs his own house); he is designing for others.
By Rand's Fountainhead logic, authors should never let anyone edit their manuscripts.
Also, by Rand's logic, if it's your friend's birthday and you bake them a cake...well, you shouldn't, because you're more important than they are. But lets assume you do bake them a cake anyway. By Fountainhead logic, you should bake your favorite cake instead of your friend's favorite cake, even though it's their birthday.
P.S. The way you describe Dominique my first thought is "this woman is severely mentally ill, probably due to very disturbing childhood abuse."
The best part? I honestly think he doesn't even dig deep enough into Dominique's psychosis. His description of her is being kind to her. Dominique didn't want to tear down Roark because the masses wouldn't love him. She *despised* the masses. She's the ultimate elitist. She wants to tear down Roark to protect him from becoming sullied and impure through contact with the ignorant ugly masses, and it's the same with his buildings, as well as the destruction of the statue.
.
"This object is too wonderful to ever be touched or beheld by commoners, so it should be destroyed to protect its purity" is basically her mantra whenever she discovers something that she actually approves of.
.
(And that's without even getting into how her sexual kinks play into this.)
Yeah, the architect concept destroys the entire point she is trying to make. Why would someone with riches and influence (or power in general) with an image to uphold in their circle want to make architecture based on someone else's ideas that conflict with the status quo? And how dumb of an architect would you have to be to depend on other people's investments yet make everything only for yourself? Really makes no sense at all. If he made buildings with his own money it could probably work but man why didn't she go with a painter or something? Maybe she figured a building being burnt down was such powerful imagery it had to be about an architect.
Not to mention, architecture, if considered an art instead of a STEM field, is one of the few where the creator doesn't actually manually make their creation- all his designs spring forth to life only with the coming together of hundreds- and as such his sole proprietorship of a building can be severely contested
@@MistyDusker and even paintings are sometimes comissioned by a patron and, if you get paid for it, you should respect the patron's wishes or just not thake the job in the first place!
"I don't build so I can get clients, I get clients so I can build." ~ Howard Roark. You guys have clearly never read The Fountainhead and if you have you are being evasive of the novel and Roark's essence.
Between the "Dune" cover and "Tremors 2" joke, man-eating worm monsters are surprisingly well-represented here. Cool beans!
Also, y'know, Ayn Rand
#maneatingwormmonsterlivesmatter
This reminds of my own experience with Ayn Rand. The only book of hers I've ever read is her novella Anthem, which is basically about railing against your society and its ideas of identity to find your self. The story really stuck with me, and I think a large part of that is that I'm trans and Anthem works really well as a trans narrative.
Then I read the "about the author" section and found out Rand saw it as a dystopia America was heading towards if it allowed for a strong central government. I haven't read the story since high school, but I imagine I would react the same way you did with Fountainhead.
Has no-one pointed out that “tenants” and “tenets” are two different words? Tenants live in buildings, philosophy has tenets.
That's the joke.
Oh ok NOW I understand the movie Tenet better.
it's a play on words that's the joke
“Why won’t any of the firms let me build my architectural designs?” fumed the Randian hero silently as he drew another line with his imported mechanical pencil. He paused and then recalled a tip one of his former professors taught the class on how to resolve a tricky load-bearing issue. “Can’t the world see I’m utterly independent and self-made! Why won’t they invest in my dreams???” :/
Have your read a book? Did he cry because Noone was buying his designs? No, his company failed and he went to work in marble mines so he could get some money and start again
@@danielkraus5560 Talking past the point. Lying about what was said.
Robin, that sounds nothing like the character. I join Daniel Kraus in asking: have you read the book?
*it's a joke*
@@heartache5742 ugh! always with the joke defense! seriously, does anyone ever fall for that?
Hmmm, who does this architect remind me of... oh I know, it's the guy who designed the new University of Freiburg library! Which is totally not a nice building to be in and has had to have in more money poured into it for massive renovations to fix problems. Speaking as an artist, I get the vision. But as a student who had to use that library, it was not well designed. It's extremely bland inside and there's nothing to rest your eyes on when you look up from pages and screens. No where near enough seating and massive areas of wasted space. The black mirrored glass that covers it needs awning so the reflections don't blind drivers and that was BEFORE the actual glass started FALLING OFF THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING. And how stupid was it to design a disability access door that worked on hydraulics and then mount it in an angled wall. It broke in two weeks and had to be completely rebuilt. Called it. This would work a lot better if the story wasn't about an architect. Because, (as someone has already pointed out) architects don't design for themselves but for other people. The firm that won the Freiburg UB was very wrapped up in their own vision and forgot about the thousands of students that have to spend a lot of time in there. Artists in design have to consider their clients' needs. And if you can't you won't get clients. Isn't that kind of capitalism? Rand doesn't understand art. She doesn't get artists. And she certainly doesn't understand architecture.
Good point. My university had a similar snafu with an award winning architect's sports centre. The building was built in brutalist syle, had slate cladding that fell off and the roof leaked. The contractor was also not up to par because the concrete was badly cast so instead of being a celebration of the material, the building just looks rough and unfinished.
@@nataschavisser573 I feel you. My first university in Germany also had an award winning Brutalist campus. The guy is so in love with his work that he forbade any changes during his lifetime. Which was fun to work around during the massive renovations the campus needed in 2011 through 2012.
My secondary school merged with another and got a brand new building, and it was the most stressful space I've ever had to work in. It was oval shaped and all the rooms had windows across the entire wall that faced the big atrium with a chapel in the middle, you could be seen from every angle wherever you were, even the bathrooms were open plan. You only had privacy if you were in a toilet cubicle. And all the doors had release buttons, you couldn't just walk through or out of the building without stopping to press a button which often had kids hanging around it to wind you up.
Oh and the purpose-built changing rooms didn't have showers
@@testosteronic Wait... You went to school in a Panopticon? A philosopher literally designed a building like that (where every inhabitant could be observed at all times) but he intended it to be a *prison*.
Ayn Rand used Frank Loyd Wright. The guy who designed buildings that fell down, were cold. The windows didn't open, and their was no place to work or live. When people complained about it, Frank said, "Do you want grreat art, or do you want to hang up your coat. Yeah, I want a place to hang my coat.
I loved the character of Gail Wynand and found him much more interesting and fully realized than Roark. For example, the way he rallied members of his gang to steal library books, the story behind the naming of his yacht (the "I do"), his dramatic rise to media mogul status. All of that delighted 16-year-old me.
Wynand is my favorite character, too. His rags-to-riches story was both inspiring (rising out of the slums of Hell's Kitchen) and heartbreaking (considering how much of his soul he sold to get to where he is). I mean... the man contemplated suicide daily. It's heavily implied at the end of novel that he killed himself after liquidating his assets. His tremendous willpower and talent were matched only by his self-loathing. Out of all the main characters, he felt the most human to me.
After my bachelor degree I spend 2 or 3 years working without an audience from a studio in my house. Painting virtually everyday, at one point I was finishing work, putting down in my storage space and take one I had finished earlier from the other end of the line, put on a new white ground or fresh canvas and start again, just continually recycling.
Up to a certain point, the first year or so, it was a downward spiral. After a while that didn't matter anymore. I had no horizon, just working like this. I'm happy to have had the experience, when I feel push back or insecurity now I think to myself, I can always go back to living and working like that, It's allright.
Haha, I went through a similar misinterpretation journey with D.H. Lawrence. I discovered his works in my late teens, and I really enjoyed what I thought were complex, satirical, layered writings about class and gender in the early 20th century. Lawrence's most famous novels feature upper class characters failing to relate to and communicate with the working class up to a point where the workers seem downright inhuman when seen through the main characters' eyes, and I naturally assumed that it all had to a be criticism of the degenerate ruling class that has completely lost its touch with humanity. I had that impression for years before I actually bothered to look up what sort of statements Lawrence had made outside his fiction, and hoooo booooy he was an actual proto-fascist dirtbag with all the horrible opinions. That's when I suddenly realized that I had been misreading all of his books and the satire wasn't actually satire.
I feel like once authors reach a certain batshit threshold, Hanlon’s Razor absolutely inverts. “Don’t attribute to satire what can be attributed to malice.” Unfortunately, most people read the books, attribute it to satire and metaphor, and then only discover the malice afterwards, like people who read Lawrence and Rand.
@@OkamiG15 as saddening as it is, I still find a glimmer of sweetness in it, that regular people go into these books assuming/interpreting that the author (and by extension the world populace) is good, and that any malicious content must be satire
Renegade Cut has a video titled Downton Abbey - Aristo-Trash ruclips.net/video/0VVYoqaz74A/видео.html
I haven't watched Downton Abbey, but it's apparently written by a conservative and basically does the same thing.
I'm frequently surprised how people don't get the message of movies. Two of my favorites are The Unforgiven and The Hurt Locker. Clint Eastwood was surprised to hear that his movie is anti-violence. I am too. The message I took from it is that it takes a man to shoot a gun. I liken it to The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. Rugged Republicans defend the country and uphold the laws while liberal pencil necks do the paper pushing in Washington. But my absolute favorite is the music group Rammstein. They are supposedly right wing and anti-feminist because their videos have violence and show women treated badly. This was argued as good things. Rammstein are one of "us." That's not how it works. If it did, Schindler's List would be an anti-Jew, pro-Holocaust movie. I can perfectly understand your reading of D.H. Lawrence, but not that you don't get the irony of Rammstein or Paul Verhoeven's Starship Troopers. "Irony" is not the correct word for it, but I use the word in the sense we commonly use it and for the simple reason that I don't know of a better word. Really any word. For me, these things are so base that there really is no need for a word. Again, not Lawrence.
@@grisflyt I watched Renegade Cut's video on Downton Abbey and had mixed feelings, as a fan of the show. For me, Downton Abbey is part of a genre of shows, usually British, that depict their characters as part of a community that helps and protects its members. In Downton Abbey, that isn't just the rich family upstairs, but also the servants downstairs, including the gay character. This concern for one another's welfare isn't siloed into their respective classes, either. Both groups concern themselves with the welfare of one another. I don't discredit RC's criticisms - it's true the socialist unrest of the early 20th century is given short shift in the show. Daisy's support for a Labour government isn't explained, just stated and then they move on. And while the show does mention some of the bigger social reforms, like women's suffrage, mostly the events of the show focus on the inner dramas in the lives of the people who live in Downton Abbey, both above and below stairs.
A more progressive example of this community-focused genre is Call the Midwife, which depicts LGBTQ, immigrant, disabled, etc. characters with compassion and acceptance, but is set in London's East End in the late 1950-60s, where "affluence" is owning your own shop. Granted, the majority of the main characters are white (until later seasons), but minor characters of color are shown living everyday lives in the same neighborhood. Every episode depicts at least one family's experience with pregnancy and childbirth and often those families are struggling with _something_ whether it's terrible tragedy like giving birth to a thalidomide baby or cultural differences relating to childbirth. I'm sure the show could be criticized as painting too rosy of a picture, but as someone who has felt isolated and unsupported for much of my life, the show provides me an escape to a world in which people do care about the well-being of their co-workers and neighbors. However, every single episode is emotionally intense, so I have to pace my viewing.
Downton Abbey gave me a similar feeling, while being less emotionally intense (most of the time). So while I acknowledge RC's criticisms, I don't think I'll be giving up my escapist viewing of DA when I'm feeling unsupported or as if I'm surrounded by people who are entirely motivated by their own self-interest.
Death of the Author, guys. That's the framework of criticism you're all struggling to articulate.
I can't thank you enough for including Applegate on your list of authors to read. Animorphs is the greatest war epic of the last 30 years, and I stand by that, and it's nice to see someone else who at least vaguely agrees with me.
Animorphs, Fullmetal Alchemist and Avatar: The Last Airbender are the only three mainstream media whose discourses on war are worth listening to
@@EvlNabiki
Nah. Much more exist.
A note on the analysis: If I have interpreted the novel correctly, these "the man who could not be" and so on should be appended with "as long as he does not change himself."
It's not that they lack the hardware for succeeding. It's about their mode of facing the world. Their attitude.
In fact, late in the novel, Roark sees beautiful paintings made by Peter, which he has hidden from the world, and this makes Roark mad, since Peter has neglected his potential.
I had to read the fountainhead for my English class in high school and my class was full of gay, socialist, Christians so we hated every gd second of this book. ooooooooooooooooooooooof
Okay libtard!!
The survivor-ship bias line I hate the most from rich or business types is "luck is where preparation meets opportunity". Yeah, duh you have to be prepared for your opportunities. However, getting the right opportunities for your preparations at the right time has a huge luck factor thrown in. Hence, why so many people can work extremely hard, but only a few make it.
Exactly. There are always factors out of a persons control. To have the right opportunity at the right moment when the preparations are right, is rare.
It can be something as simple as having funds set aside for a stock deal, but right at the moment when the opportunity opens your washing machine breaks down. Or the train is late. Or there is a power outage. Or your grandma dies. Events that you have no way of predicting and no way of preventing, but that happen nonetheless. And dealing with those things will be more important than catching the big stock deal.
I worked for years in a specialized school to pursue a career in professional baking. I've since been diagnosed with multiple disabling illnesses and had to put much of my life on hold. Rand and her worshippers would probably call me lazy.
@@somedragonbastard Sadly, your comment is true. I'm sorry to hear about your health issues and hope you've recovered since the time of your post.
@@Here4TheHeckOfIt unfortunately my illnesses are chronic, so I'll be living with them for my entire life. I've at least been lucky enough to have (mostly) good doctors
Every time you play a clip from first wives club I want to watch it again. It also made me think Rand would hate that movie, seeing them take their ex-husbands money and make a charity out of it. (spoilers! :P) Just more reasons to watch it.
It's really funny considering it has such a dark beginning❤❤
I have not watched first wives club. Did the taking their ex-husbands money involve deceit?
@@zapazap Just go watch the movie. It's under two hours.
while i may question your school's decision to include this book on a reading list for such an early age, i wonder if your freind understand that it's possible to read a book without agreeing to the ideas expressed in it. that's what it's all about. we should leave the age of intellectual fear if we really want to understand what's wrong with the world.
Exactly, there are a couple books that I have read and a couple I plan to read that I don't agree with, but that are so influential, that I need to see the source first hand. Only if you read the book itself you become able to interpret the original message. And beliefs, be it religious, political, social, or any other way, are meant to be tested. Maybe it changes your perspective, maybe it hardens your existing ideas, but it needs to be tested to see the outcome.
And it is important to keep an open mind about other ideals and beliefs, not only with the intent of conversion, but also to understand other peoples point of view.
Nice “death of the author” based analysis. Only problem is that Rand herself would have called your entire video “hooey”. She would have croaked “Socialism bad, Capitalism good”. That’s the entire depth of her thought; looking for more is hoping to find pearls in a dung heap.
I own a copy of Atlas Shrugged because I got it for free and figured I should probably eventually read it considering just how conservatives seem to think it's another Bible.
@kevin willems Conservatives do not understand Ayn Rand or capitalism. In real capitalism there is no such thing as picking winners or losers. Freedom prevails. The market pick the winners or losers in any product or service.
John Galt see i think if free markets could work then capitalism would be great but i think that that is literally impossible.
@kevin willems Disney as with anything that exists was a "fantasy" an idea. RUclips was a fantasy/idea. If you are going to joke, do better than that. lol
@@niveditatewary2012 Let's see to the extend markets are more free while not violating individual rights. Individuals prosper. To the extend that they are not, individuals standard of living decline. Simple test. North Korea, South Korea. The economic argument has been won already, what I am fighting for is a moral revolution. Where each individual is free to pursue their own happiness and achieve it without violating anyone's individual rights and that is the moral GOOD.
John Galt i think you are cherry picking m8, like currently the best countries to liver are probably scandinavian they aren't like socialist but they ain't free market capitalist (not that i'm opposed to socialism) like without the government involved it leads to like unequal hell where democracy can't function
Objectivism feels like such a U.S. American thing. I'm sure her work has been translated into many languages, but teaching it in public schools? Having entire institutions dedicated to singing its praises? Nah. Only the U.S. loves capitalism THIS much lol
Nah. I don't think so, as objectivism is a global thing.
What's wrong with loving capitalism?
Whats wrong with being Objective or with a Merit based society?
everything is wrong with capitalism, oBjEcTiViTy and mEeErIiIit
@@heartache5742 CaPiTaLiSM bAd
I know I’m super late to the Comments Party but I’d highly recommend the graphic novel Age of Selfishness, which looks at Ayn Rand, how she grew up and how her philosophy has impacted the later half of the 20th Century.
As a kid, raised in Tsarist Russia, many of her beloved toys were taken from her and her siblings under the pretense that they were given to an orphanage when they were simply thrown away. When she got upset about it, her guardians said that she shouldn’t have given them away if she loved them so much and “serves her right”. Rand also harbored an extreme dislike of Communism and Socialism after she and her wealthy family were expelled from Russia during the revolution as a teen. She also had a lot of rejection in Hollywood, in the 1920s, for screenplays she wrote that were deemed less than stellar and only got cast as an extra when she wanted to be an actress. Those things alone, among others, in her early life really put her philosophy into perspective.
I wish more people would know about her back story more before taking her ideas at face value. She’d probably be ok if she had someone, like a therapist or professional, to talk to and sort things out instead of spewing unaddressed paper and ink vitriol onto others...
Rand's push back against altruism always struck me no so much as "helping others is bad", but more along the lines of "others expecting you to help them, or shaming your for not helping them is bad".
That's way too charitable, though. She explicitly villanizes the concept of dedicating your life to charity or being altruistic.
Thing is, she assumes that nobody would ever want to help others unless they’d been shamed into thinking they had to. Like, Peter’s girlfriend, whose name I forget, works at a kindergarten. This is presented as a sign of a hysterical love of self-degradation thanks to Toohey’s brainwashing. There’s a sort of climax of her horrific self-annihilation when she mentions she has to go to work today because one of the kids has an infected throat that she has to swab, and we’re supposed to be aghast that she’s this broken creature who thinks it’s good to do anything so disgusting.
The idea that she might do it because she loves the kid and wants him to get better is not in Rand’s psychological vocabulary.
Really, in Rand’s ideal world, nobody would provide medical care for children. The ultimate horror for Roark’s temple is that it’s turned into a care centre for disabled kids, who are so gross, she thinks, that nothing but a love of degradation and an enmity to humanity could possibly, you know, make you think that children like my own son might deserve a nice building.
For Rand, it’s axiomatic that you shouldn’t help people you find disgusting - which is basically anyone who might actually need help. A huge part of her philosophy boils down to, ‘Why would you want to help people? They’re yucky!’
@@danofthehour4822 Wrong. She critizised the idealized portrayal of the a life dedicated to charity as the ultimate realization of virtue, she did not critizise any individual whose honest personal drive is to help others without apparent personal gain.
@@LordSantiagor exactly
She literally believed and said so in her own words that helping others is bad. You cannot disagree with that.
“Why do I own a copy of The Fountainhead? I honestly hadn’t thought about it since the last time I read it.” Same! I read it at sixteen and, other than vaguely enjoying the plot, have never felt the urge to revisit it in the ten years since. It certainly didn’t rock me to my core and convert me to a staunch supporter of Objectivism, it just filled the time on my metro rides as I commuted to college for a couple of weeks.
I always thought Paul Verhoeven would be the perfect choice to direct an Ayn Rand adaptation.
I genuinely want to see Zack Snyder achieve his dream of adapting it. The result would be perfection in all the best wrong ways. And the idea of The Fountainhead being adapted by a second-rate hack who built his career by recycling other people's ideas is just so so SO delicious. I can't imagine a more appropriately ironic outcome: being adapted to film by exactly the sort of person Rand despised and wrote the book to denounce. It would be Peter Keating's The Fountainhead.
David Fincher was attached for awhile.
Paul Verhoven's interpretation of _The Fountainhead?_ I can already see the Ayn Rand Institute going into conniptions.
@@jasonblalock4429 Uwe Boll's The Fountainhead
Robocop is an objectivist utopia
Dominic is the audience, that loves you but hates you, that uplifts you and sabotages you at the same time, that goes to other artists multiple times and you still can't stop wanting to see again... Damn...
My brother was a "dropout" as in he didnt finish his highschool deploma so he could study coding and hes really good at it hes super smart and very assertive so he has been able to get jobs easily just based of his experience and skills and he is getting richer and richer because of it but It goes to his head sometimes because he thinks he desearves it cause he worked hard. He did work hard but a lot of his success is due to luck. I have finished school and have experience in different fields but I havent been able to find a job to just support myself for the last four years even though I've applied to hundereds of companies its 70% luck and Im not saying this to say poor me or whatever but my brother and I came from the same social class are the same race and had the same education and both worked hard but one of us is rich while one of us is getting by its very easy for rich people to tell us if your not rich you arnt working hard enough but our society isnt fair or unfair its lucky or unlucky
an hour and 10min left into the day for me over here and "less than a year into his pre... pregnancy jesus christ" finally got a laugh out of me. Day isn't ending on a blah note
It's easy to accuse artists of being "sellouts" when you were born rich lmao
@Hans Hanzo ...So it's okay if something is supporting liberal propaganda? You're implying both sides don't have their own bullshit to spout. Considering the current sitting president of the united states IS a republican, I would call what *you* said more extreme of a viewpoint than anything. The idea that a book agreeing with the current leader of the US being a very extreme book, is itself a very extreme viewpoint. Even if an artist were to sell out, is it really that awful to sell out (and not starve, as you said) for the current ideology of the leading world power?
She’s not a hypocrite for getting social security. SHE LITERALLY WAS FORCED TO PAY INTO IT WITH HER OWN TAXES. She was LEGALLY ENTITLED to the benefits she herself paid for.
Everything you produce on here is amazing. It motivates me to push harder with my own art.
My grandmother idolizes her and "much yikes" is all I can say. I can appreciate the work it takes to produce a piece of literature, but YIKES to the philosophies they carry.
The idea that people take the author of a book they likes word as gospel is kinda scary to me
Worship the idea not the person
@@MechanicWolf85 Do not worship anything. Think for yourself. See if it works. And be honest enough to acknowledge reality.
@@MechanicWolf85 Worship is defined as blind loyalty. Any idea that cannot withstand scrutiny is as weak and useless as the people who believe in it.
She is not just the author of a book we like. She created an entire integrated system of philosophy.
@@a.r.w.2753 Hate on her books more (: More people will read the book and make their own judgement. Also, Ayn Rand and her books require or at least it helps when people who read her books have ambition and have a goal. People with a sense of life. Most people who criticize her not on merit or her ideas, tend to be people who are unhappy and unsuccessful. I choose happiness & success. Each individual makes their own choice. Choose wisely.
You know: I don't think I'm smart enough to watch your videos, but I do enjoy your passion. Enjoy your dinosaur book
The Fountainhead sliding in from camera left as Fergalicious begins to play will never, ever not crack me up.
I'm not too familiar with Rand's works or objectivism, but I've been watching things like the culture war for a while, from a sort of outside perspective. Also, not sure where I'm going with this after a reread of what I wrote.
What I read over the critique of altruism at 19:58 is thus: "If you base your entire moral worth on alleviating the suffering of others, then when that suffering is no longer present, you have no way of having moral worth. To have moral worth in this situation, you will need more suffering to exist." It's really a mirrored criticism, in principle, of how corporations work -- a corporation's worth is based entirely on capital growth (increasing earnings), but if there are no more earnings to exploit, then what happens?
Investors only want to invest in a company if it can promise growth and become more valuable. But if they have already reached most of their market and have negligible growth prospects, investors/shareholders are instead going to want a smaller company that can actually promise growth. (Hell, companies can even be SUED for not satisfying their shareholders.) The end result is that once you reach the top, you can only go down, and going down is in fact immediate and inevitable... and you'll probably wind up dragging down others with you, in an effort to futilly stop your own fall. If you sell solutions but the problems don't exist, you need to MAKE those problems, one way or another.
The same applies to virtue and morality. Instead of investment, it's clout. Instead of capital growth, it's moral growth. Morality becomes a contest to many... where once it may have actually been about helping your target, it then turns selfish because once your hat is in the ring, you're going to get compared and contrasted. You'll be overcome by those forces you first saw in the book. The challenge becomes to care more about what you know is right rather than what others think about you. Because your good intentions might be corrupted... when instead of adjusting and accepting that the situation has changed around you, or you may have been ideologically mistaken in light of new evidence, you refuse to see it and just double down. I wonder if perhaps this might have actually happened to Rand herself?
There are a lot of moral and social dynamics that make most absolute and utopian ideals nonstarters. They might look good on paper, but fail to work in practice, especially when things inevitably start to break down. One important aspect is to make sure that nothing ever winds up being contingent on a single point of failure for any reason. Monopolies in any capitalistic system are a disaster waiting to happen, because that's one point of failure (and that failure is corruption and greed). Capitalism only functions when there are competing, rivalling forces, and the consolidation of power eliminates those redundancies. Top-down authoritarian systems (such as top-down government socialism... which is part of the reason why it's always degenerated into corruption) also have a single-point-of-failure, that being the government control over most if not all aspects of society. If that point fails, everything relying on it fails. If that point decays or loses efficiency, so too does everything else become bottlenecked by it. If that point is corrupted, there's nothing to keep it in check.
Think about government bureaucracies that run inefficiently and are supposed to help large swathes of society but in practice, often run poorly. And nobody else picks up the slack. It's a centralized system with a single point of failure, and a good example is all the people who had massive delays or never received their unemployment from the pandemic situation. Some of which were already living paycheck to paycheck.
Then think again about situations where you have three or four independent charity organizations. Some of them may be corrupt or inefficient, but people can figure out which ones work the best with some deep diving, and even assuming that many are too dumb and give it to the wrong charity, the others are still working fine. Some measure of the benefit arrives, because of redundancy.
Anyone in investment will tell you to diversify your investments, in case one stock winds up tanking, that way you don't lose everything. Engineers build passenger jetliners with four engines, that way if one engine blows out, that jetliner carrying hundreds of lives doesn't just fall out of the sky and kill everyone; the aircraft might still be able to make an emergency landing, or even manage to arrive at its destination even with the blown out engine. A tech company might have a RAID setup so that even if one hard disk fails, the data is still recoverable thanks to redundant disks. Protestors and activists decentralize their activities so there is no one central point of failure. Cryptocurrencies and peer to peer networks are decentralized to eliminate a single point of failure. Our bodies have some redundant organs (lungs, kidneys, etc) and the result is that we can survive through losing one. The list goes on and on.
Maybe the tricky thing is having a way to prevent everything from congealing into a single point of failure without an overarching system that boils down to a single point of failure already? Anarchism has no rules, and anarcho-capitalism has no checks and balanaces to prevent monopolies from forming. But to stop those, you need something that has the authority to prevent such conglomeration... but how do you get that kind of authority without it, itself, being a centralized power?
The hilarious thing about people who are inspired by her writings is that they all immediately self-identify as Makers rather than Takers.
Uh, excuse you? If Ayn Rand doesn't deserve "Turn Down For What" she *definitely* doesn't deserve "Cruella De Vil".
The thing that really gets me is that architecture is arguably the artform that least exists solely for the benefit of its artists alone. People have to walk by buildings every day, and people have to live and work inside of them. No matter how well a building is able to convey the chosen aesthetic of its artist, you could consider it a failure if it fails to meet the fundamental needs of the people who occupy it.
Falling Water's roof leaks when it rains.
28:30 Another example I like (as an amputee) is that when airbags became standard in cars, there was a dramatic rise in traumatic limb loss in car crash survivors.
Barbara Stanwyck's politics breaks my heart every time.
We could have had a bad bitch :'( At least there is Lauren Bacall!
MelinaPendulum what breaks your heart- her pro Americanism, her knowledge that art should be free of subliminal communist messaging, or her idea that people should rise and fall to their own level without public subsidy?
@@franciscodanconia45 People these days aren't allowed to enjoy the work of, or have respect for people that differ politically from the nu-left status quo.
@@quorthorn7945 No, they're allowed. Other people are allowed to criticize that respect.
in a car jam
So in conclusion, Rand effectively used Girl Power to help fund the capitalist hegemony of today? :P Great work as always dude!
How many trips to Thailand have you taken?
Pretty much, given how the "love interest" sleeps around men of power to use them to her own devices, that is making a selfish and self-important sociopath who treated her as his f**ktoy (and who, by this virtue, is her soulmate) a freeman just for saying "F**k society, it should bend to MOI... Juste BECAUSE!".
And then eveyrone clapped and took this as a new Gospel for the ages to come.
I put this on as background noise, but ended up just sitting and watching the whole thing. My goodness, this video is well done.
One of the things I really appreciate about your videos is that I don't need to know anything about the subject; I had never even heard of The Fountainhead before seeing this video, and yet you explore the topic and explain yourself in such a way that it's very accessible.
Ronald Reagan's historic accomplishment was in successfully marrying two right-wing movements that previously could not be in the same room without a fight - the Christian Right and the "Libertarians". The former hated the latter for their godlessness and haughty intellectual airs, and the latter hated the former for their worship of an authoritarian deity and credulous belief in superstitious hokum. The former defended their Christian virtues against the sneers of the latter, and the latter trumpeted Freedom! against the prohibitions imposed by the former.
Reagan managed to put together the perfect synthesis as it was made clear that when it came down to brass tacks, the former really worshiped not Jesus but Mammon, and the only Freedom the latter really cared about was the Freedom of rich people to do whatever they want with their money, especially if it's about amassing more of it. They really are of the same church.
The American brand of Christianity is often referred to as a folk religion in academic circles. It's a concoction of Christianity, white nationalism and American exceptionalism. Roe v Wade became a bigger issue during the 1980s than it had been in the 1970s. The Christian right was primarily concerned with racial segregation in the 1970s. The Civil Rights were equally the driving force behind the American libertarianism.
@@grisflyt Any chance you could sling me a source for American Christianity being a folk religion? I kinda wanna look into that.
Renni Denni as an Eastern Orthodox Christian, America does have what could be described as folk religions. Similar to how China has folk religions. American folk religion brings us strange practices and beliefs such as the rapture, snake handling, having a specific day you were “saved”, the racist “mark of Cain”, speaking in tongues, and various others I probably forgot about. Mormonism and Russelism are the zenith I think, of this phenomena.
To paraphrase Lemon Demon's song "Angry People": when two people hate each other very much, they make love. *Angrily.* And then conceive an evil baby.
The modern American right wing is that evil baby, and it will kill us all with the gun its parents gave it.
Rich people bad! State good! Me good commie!
You should go to any libertarian meeting, all middle class people, working people trying to create value with their business.
But of course, you picked your narrative long ago so whatever
rIcH bAd!11111
I found out about Ayn Rand's politics at about the same time as I first heard about her books, so I never actually thought about reading them.
Reading the Fountainhead and blocking all the characters' inner dialogue though? THAT sounds intriguing!
So your 'finding out' was second hand. Alright then.
I long ago decided if I was going to turn a Rand book into a movie, it'd be conditional on getting Paul Verhoeven to direct.
I'd watch one directed by Mel Brooks
I lived with a libertarian for 9 years and can tell you that Ayn Rand's philosophy is exactly how they viewed the world...despite the fact they themselves were working poor. The funny thing is the guy now lives on social security and will most likely die alone just like his hero.
My problem with Ayn Rand is she never actually read any of the classical books on economics. I highly recommend people read "Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith. He is both the father of capitalism and founder of classical liberalism. He knew that capitalism unregulated would just turn into feudalism if unchecked, which is why the government was supposed to provide public works that supported the labor force. He literally says that education should be free to any and all, and should be paid for by taxing the merchants. If he were alive today, he'd support universal healthcare, and I'm pretty sure he would've expanded the new deal and made damn sure no dipshit like Ronnie Reagan ever saw power.