I read this as a senior in high school. I read it, loved it, and then read Atlas Shrugged. I re-read them as an adult and still liked them and understood them at a different level.
@@christinacascadilla4473 Dear Ms Cascadilla, I appreciate that the novel creates very strong responses and that Rand’s philosophy is not for everyone - including me. The book is, however, a fascinating and beautifully written work that stimulates discussion in a way few other novels manage to achieve. So to describe those who agree with Rand’s stance as “douches” lacks the sophistication inherent in both her arguments and literary style.
Good for Andy Puzder pointing out you don't have to like everything Ms. Rand writes. But at the end of the day, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are two of the best books ever written. Thank you PragerU for talking about this book!
Outstanding episode. I finally read this book for the first time about 4 years ago in my late 40s along with Atlas Shrugged. It was like a shockwave as I read someone describing experiences I had in the corporate entertainment industry. Can’t keep recommending Ayn Rand enough though I always express the same concerns you both mentioned in the episode re: faith and sex. Her views on those topics aside, she should be required reading for high school students. Thank you for your work. This episode is exactly what I needed today for encouragement and inspiration for my work today. God bless you.
Read this over the summer out loud as a family (kids ages 9 1/2 and 13). Stopped every so many paragraphs/pages to explain/understand, but they loved it. My daughter (younger child), at times, predicted where things were leading, esp regarding Toohey. I thought it might be a bit early, but after the opening scene at the lake, the kids stayed hooked. (Side note, my daughter is named after a character in Atlas Shrugged.)
@@VirtuousHereticKristin ok. Looking forward to reading it and then watching the films. I've only seen King Vidor's The Fountainhead and enjoyed it for not conforming under artistic creativity that's supported by talent.
Men can only read Ayn Rand one way; Out loud standing formidably at the edge of acliff with a tempestuous sea behind you, wearing button down shirt rippling in the wind due to the first three buttons unbuttoned on a picnic blanket with your woman in a summer dress, grasping your leg and looking up at you, listening intently, enraptured at your every word.
Hello Mr. Puzder. I enjoyed how you efficiently described the philosophical purpose within America's founding principles and framework. I also enjoyed hearing you talk about how you taught your children to ask "why". Such a smart thing you've done to help your kids grasp what's really going on around them, and to navigate their own life in good conscience with honesty and integrity. Around the 20:30 mark of this video presentation, you say: "I do see how Rand means that selfishness can be a virtue because it benefits others". I hope that you don't mind my saying that I think you are substantially misunderstanding Rand's conceptual meaning and her application of the word 'selfishness' when you characterize it as "benefit to others". It seems like such an important mistake on your part because: 1) Rand consistently explained and applied the word 'selfishness' in a manner that is NOT associated with "benefit to others". 2) Regular published definitions for the word 'selfishness' show the opposite meaning of "benefit to others". So could you please clarify what you are talking about when you express that: "selfishness can be a virtue BECAUSE it benefits others". Thank you in advance for any response that you might provide.
There’s an interview with Steve Jobs where he said that one of the most profound moments he had was when he realized everything around him was designed. Someone had to sit down and figure out how to make what he took for granted that was all around him. Intention, design, production. Within a society like ours anyone can be this person. Not so much in other places…
Hello Mr. Knowles and Mr. Puzder. "Rape" commonly denotes criminal assault or unwanted coercive force with regard to touching or penetrating ... or perhaps threatening to do this to someone ... or even attempting to do this to someone while failing to get away with it. In The Fountainhead and in Atlas Shrugged we can recall the described experiences, feelings, statements, and behaviors of each of the two female protagonists before, during, and after their sexual encounters. Before her sexual encounter with Roark, Dominique is shown actively trying to make the encounter happen. As the daughter of the man who employs/pays her male target, she tries to use her position power over her target in an attempt to maneuver him into her bed. She is then shown lying to her target about a phony repair needed at her home that she wants him to fix for her - in an attempt to deceptively maneuver him into her bed. She is then shown aggressively chasing down her male target and initiating physical assault on him because she is upset that he is behaving indifferent to HER repeated seduction efforts. In these actions of this woman before their sexual encounter, does it seem like the woman is involved in a rape experience? No, it clearly does not. During their sexual encounter Dominique is shown experiencing gratefulness, euphoria, and pleasure in a clear context of feeling personally fortunate about the encounter. In this activity of their encounter, does it seem like the woman is involved in a rape experience? No, it clearly does not. Immediately following their sexual encounter, Dominique is trying to prolong and preserve her good memory of the encounter in her own admitted emotional mood of joy and appreciation. Later on after their encounter she is shown repeatedly remembering the experience in a context of happiness and increased attraction to the man, gratefulness for their sexual encounter, hoping to reconnect with the man, and yearning to repeat their encounter. She is then shown enthusiastically moving to the city where the man is living and working, with her own genuine hope of meeting up with him again. In this aftermath of their initial sexual encounter, does it seem like the woman is experiencing that encounter as a rape? No, it clearly does not. In Atlas Shrugged, Dagny's sexual encounters (from her own perspective) are each portrayed as being consensual and appropriate for her, with zero thoughts or statements about it being unwelcome for her, or being assault, or being unwanted coercive force. After her encounters, there are no narratives nor activities that imply that she is upset or fearful or regretful toward the encounter or toward the man who she was with. She is then shown continuing to be friends with and continuing to have respectful interactions with each of these men following their sexual encounters. Does any of this seem like a woman who is experiencing it as rape? No, it clearly does not. In both stories, sexual encounters are described as emanating from a mutual recognition of virtuous character traits. Sexual attraction between characters in Rand's stories is caused primarily by respect for the other person's values, their straight talk, their spiritual strength, and their earned accomplishments. The characters are attractive to one another because of their integrity, their convictions, their full responsibility, and their authentic delight with being alive. They are attractive because they do not fake life ... and they do not compromise to pragmatism or trends or trying to impress. The characters are not primarily attractive to each other because of their body appearance or their money or their status or their lust. Also, these characters are behaving relatively modest and private. They are very selective and they are not sleeping around with many people. Some are shown going years without sex because they respect the serious importance of this special activity. When it does occur they are not using each other like an objectified sex doll ... there is a high quality of spirit connection for the two people, and there is an intention that their partner will experience good feelings about themselves before, during, and after the situation. The sexual attractions within Ayn Rand's books emerge from a valuing of the other person's philosophical convictions and philosophical behaviors. Such situations are specifically used by the author as a device to celebrate valuable ideology and emphasize good character while contrasting this with the bad nature of other characters in the story. The scenes are NOT intended to be pornographic nor prurient. They are NOT included so as to appeal to a reader's sense of voyeurism or lust. The sexual attractions have an important philosophical meaning that is an integral important aspect of the story. Mr. Puzder, you even implied that you wish Rand would have left these scenes out of her stories. You seem to be unaware about the philosophical importance of their inclusion, and you seem to be unaware about the ways in which their absence/removal would noticeably decrease the philosophical value of the stories. I hope that you both will please explain for us why you have decided to frame this aspect of Rand's fiction as being negative, inappropriate, or disposable. Are you thinking that sex is dirty or bad or wrong ... instead of being beautiful and good and normal? I don't want to put words in your mouth. Thank you in advance for any response that you might provide.
@@mikeg2482 I agree totally. You gave words to my thoughts on the sexual aspects of Fountainhead (and also Atlas Shrugged). I said "Yes!" out loud as I read it. We read this book over summer as a family and my kids thoroughly loved it. (We stopped every so often to clarify.) My daughter's name came from Atlas Shrugged (Francisca), and she loves the connection with Ayn Rand more now. Anyway, cheers to you, Mike!
@@jasonk8775 I understand what you are saying Jason. Speaking for myself, Dominique seems pretty easy to understand, easy to like, and easy to appreciate. I think Rand did a good job of using her character to demonstrate what many people have felt about life. It seems to me that when people comment about Rand or Rand's stories, they are often revealing something about themselves and commenting on their own inner dialogues. Their spoken commentary or criticisms are typically about something that has nothing to do with what Rand actually said, or what Rand actually intended, or what Rand actually portrayed. I think that this is occurring several times within this presented video conversation. Rather than me learning about what Mr. Knowles and Mr. Puzder think about Rand or think about The Fountainhead ... I instead learned about what Mr. Knowles thinks about Mr. Knowles and what Mr. Puzder thinks about Mr. Puzder.
I believe Leonard Piekoff said Rand considered “The Fountainhead” ought to be read as an overture to “Atlas Shrugged.” I take this to mean that Atlas is an outline of longer, greater developments, that a full-scale Atlas demands. Rand and others then thought that Atlas should be a TV miniseries - or today, a limited series as seen on AMC and Netflix, ect. The two Texas shale oil billionaires backing Daily Caller’s move into entertainment and family friendly films now owns enough IP rights to Atlas and intend to do just this. Could be more than interesting. It could be a lasting classic of a classic - FINALLY.
I think fountainhead needs to be trimmed down by a couple hundred pages. It's funny because I didn't feel that way about atlas shrugged. The story and the characters aren't strong enough to hold me for the whole book, though the philosophy is very good.
I see the issue as bigger, which is that mediocrity will always be envious and resentful of Genius and if Genius is not properly protected it will be assailed, and if possibly destroyed.
Unlike Roark you actually have a degree and a license to practice architecture. Rand's knowledge of the profession was limited to her imagination and how she thought they acted. Like in Atlas Bugged, she had no idea how business worked or trains ran.
P.S. Don't forget about the Gary Cooper movie. The entire movie felt like they were just speed reading through the book. If you've already read the book though, it's a good film to watch.
My dad introduced me to the book as it's one of his all time favorites. I've also known some great people throughout history like Orson Welles, Stanley Kubrick, Brian Wilson, Frank Capra, Richard Williams (animator), Bob Dylan, 2Pac, NWA, Charles Mingus and Stevie Wonder. All of them were talented to back up this risky decisions. This influenced me to never conform unless I make simple mistakes. I'd only stick to things that're different.
Always good to hear my father has a warm and fuzzy place to find peace of mind. He loves Prager U. He also loved to silence us kids. My sister had to be extra silent with daddy on top. I miss my sister. About 30 years ago they found her remains. Dad said God needed to be answered to. I hear dad is still clinging to gods path. He watches clips of Prager U incessantly to reassure himself with bias confirmation.
Yeah...... none of my Dem "friends" or relatives like her. I doubt any have actually read a single one of her works. The past 15 years I have watched their hate and ignorance really come out. Trump put them over the edge of sanity though. I don't trust any of them any more.
I disagree with some of Mr. Puzder’s conclusions about The Fountainhead, but I’m glad people like him are reading her works and recommending them to others. Great interview, great discussion.
She was absolutely an atheist. She did regret using the religious terminology after she released the novel because she thought religion was on its way out. She uses religious metaphor because that’s what’s available to us in language. But redefines what the concepts mean in a rational sense. The kind of reverence one has for God she has for the individual… Or you can say Howard Roark has for his life.
Religious speak is like shorthand. Once you read the Bible it's like learning another language and instead of explaining the how or why of stuff you just call it evil.
She wrote an essay in the 70's called, "The metaphysical versus the man made", where she used the term, "the metaphysically given" as opposed to the man made. In a way, if you are religious, you can substitute the word "god" for "the metaphysically given" throughout the essay and probably agree with the whole essay. Since nobody ever really defines god anyway, "the metaphysically given" is actually more descriptive and less confusing.
The book is great, with that said How is this book not a TV show? She wrote it so well that I literally felt like I was watching a TV show like Mad men.
Like others it was college for me. The Fountainhead had the same problem as Atlas Shrugged. No, not the economics, religion, world view but the characters. In the Fountainhead, Howard Roark remains a mystery, more a symbol than a real person. Dominique but especially Gail absolutely dominated. Gail is probably the best "could have been" hero I've ever read. John Galt comes off little more than a summation of Rand's ideas rather than an actual person. It is Dagny and Hank that dominate the story.
Toohey is also a well written character. She developed his character very well. I come from an ex socialist country. Leftists here still operate in the same way as Toohey does.
a couple of corrections: Roark does not "allow" Keatings to take credit for his housing project, he insists on it- its part of their deal, he doesn't want people to know it was his design because otherwise it wont be built. also, Keatings doesn't go against his word not to change anything, he does everything he can to keep Roark's work pure, but these overseeing the project change it anyway. lastly, Rand is not a "militant atheist". Shes an atheist yes, but that plays a pretty small role in her philosophy and books. more accurately, she is militantly opposed to "mysticism", which I think is correct.
Best novel ever written The author does a great job making you think Roark is foolish for being so stubborn throughout most of the book Excellent buildup to the profound lessons the book has to teach I don’t think either Knowles or the other gentleman properly understand the paradigm of self interest vs altruism, but good attempt nonetheless
Just like Atlas Shrugged, great analysis of one of the greatest books of all time. Just saddens me to see the amount of dislikes but also not surprising.
It’s literally what the book advocates. More people dislike it, greater the quality is. Every dislike is another epaulette for Ayn. On the back cover of the book, there is a review from New York Times, phrasing the book… I also thought it was a genius and intentional irony… If I knew the master mind behind the decision to include a NYT review on the back cover, I’d fall in love them
16:30 The Virtue of Selfishness is not a reaction to anything. It's an inductively derived conclusion that selfishness in a rational sense is a good thing. She basically shows how the facts of reality give rise to the position that valuing yourself as your highest value is logical and in harmony with reality. You live life as a valuer. Such people actually value others, that are worthy, to a deep level, because it's genuine. And you live as a rational man, which means you live long-range with rational principles. A selfish person is this sense is the greatest of valuers of life. 3/9/24, 2:27 p.m.
when she says selfishness she doesn't start with a full selfish to-do list. Part of being selfish is realizing that people don't know what is in their self interest, and the first rule of self-interest is to figure out what is in your self interest. It is a process that never ends.
it wasn't a rape. She had major psychological problems which needed to be demonstrated. Very few of her characters, despite what critics say(when they are lying about her)are pure from the beginning of her novels. They do show tremendous growth. The whole point and lesson that you learn from dominique, is what SHE herself learns. You discover that you yourself do not have to go through what she went through, or worse, start how she was at the end and move backward and end your live like she began it.
The reason why Michael Knowles responded to this book more positively when he was young compared to now it’s because he is a Peter Keating type. He has conformed to a religion that subordinates the individual to God and to your neighbor. He has joined the conservative party, which is not a free thinking party. The movement thinks of morality as commandment-based and thinks that we have duties in this world. Get married, have children, have faith, and put God first. The reason why young teenagers respond to atlas shrugged, and this novel so positively is because they haven’t conformed, and they want to achieve life… at a young age, you haven’t really had the opportunity to make profound choices. But if you end up doing what everyone else does and copy what they do, like Peter Keating does when he copies the architecture of the ancients, then you will feel a repulsion towards a character who has not confirmed. And this is not just available for young teenagers… I first read this in my late 20s and was very moved by it. And there are many people who are much older than I who love this book. If you’re going to make commitments to a group, make sure it’s a group that puts the individual first
You can't form a group that puts the individual first because a group requires something at a higher scale than the individual that binds them together. That's what distinguishes a group from a crowd. The libertarian emphasis on the individual leads inevitably to group disintegration.
@@brianbaker5555 that’s a mystical idea. There is nothing above the group. Good requires an evaluation, which requires and evaluator, which can only be done by an individual. Human beings do not operate on a zero sum game- we operate by trading value for value and a group can be a value to the individual, but not over and above himself.
@@stefanburns3797 Well I wouldn't call it a mystical idea (but even if it was, I'm not sure why that's something to be blithely shrugged off as wrong), but more mathematical. You cannot define a group without first identifying how the elements are related in meaning or purpose (a good if you will). For example, how do I group both forks and spoons in the higher level abstraction of "kitchen utensils"? I have to identify first how they are related and what purpose or good they serve. They are both metallic. They are both for eating. But each has their own unique individual characteristics.
@@brianbaker5555 yes but there is no group consciousness. The good of a spoon is a good to you for some purpose or even the way you organize silverware. There is no good in relation to the spoon to a knife. And I would say that a mystical idea is bad because it is non-rational.
@@stefanburns3797 yes identifying a good requires us, conscientiousness, but so what? You need an observer to be able to do any groupings in the first place. You have to start from somewhere. And yes but many things that are rational do not necessarily describe what is true. I can come up with a mathematical theory of the universe that is totally wrong. In fact most things that are reasoned are wrong.
I've read "The Fountainhead" and then "Atlas Shrugged" and enjoyed the aspect of the individual as a champion and also a point of attack by the users/destroyers. Also Rand's feeling regarding government social programs. As Michael and Andy mention and as a Christian, I was a bit put off by Rand's belief that anyone with "faith" is some kind of a primitive cave dweller. I guess she's never understood that God gives us all free will.
@@monso7871 So he had a choice in the matter; Cool, if you say so. Your other problem is that there is zero evidence for any of this. That's what makes it a mere faith.
@@DrMackSplackem Create life through the processes that modern-day scientists believe life was created. You also have mere faith. If we are just animals who are controlled by our genetics and chemicals in our brain. Then how do you know that what you believe is even true?
"Fountainhead" does feel rather like a rehearsal for "Atlas Shrugged". "The Virtue of Selfishness" is a provocative title, and I think Rand meant it to be, both to enhance sales and to shake up fixed attitudes. The problem is that mostpeople think of selfishness as an uncooperative two-year-old shrieking because of some thwarted desire. It makes perfect sense to encourage children to share toys (to a reasonable extent) by pointing out that a transaction can (should) benefit both parties. The benefit of letting someone else play with your toys is the reciprocal benefit of their obligation to share theirs with you. It's only the one-sided "altruistic" action that isn't rational. Conspicuous self-denial is usually virtue-signalling. Mother Theresa (regardless of how little underwear she owned) may have comforted a few of Calcutta's poorest while deriving a sense of righteousness or empathy. The industrialist Tatas mayhave done muh more for the poor by creating jobs that lifted them from poverty, even if it's only from abject to modest.
32:00 "And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake."
You should do "Fahrenheit 451" sometime! Ray Bradbury's insights into how technology has generated apathy among human beings, the suppression and destruction of actual knowledge and understanding in favor of blind and willful ignorance,
People who create controversy with Rand's work tend to be afraid of telling the truth and afraid of facing the truth. From an early age most peoples' care givers and trusted teachers and media messaging have been asking them to fake what they feel, fake what they think, fake what they want, and fake what they are committed to. Rand was opposed to all of this fakery, and people often want to defend their own right to live a fake pretended life. Anyone can discuss Rand's materials and views - it simply requires an honest approach. But most people are accustomed to using a dishonest approach during their dialogues. Most of life encourages and enables and allows a dishonest approach for dialogues, and this makes Rand appear controversial. People who claim that they dislike Ayn Rand tend to show a common pattern of doing two things: 1) They use straw mans. They misrepresent Rand's proposition which she actually authored, and then they show themselves trying to defeat their own fabricated idea instead of trying to defeat Rand's actual idea. 2) They irrationally and unfairly ADD a variety of non-associated and non-related concepts in their efforts to smear Rand. For example ... "Ayn Rand was in favor of free trade on an open market and therefore she is a bad person because look at all of the bad things that capitalism has caused". Then as a listener you feel that you must try to unpack, point out, explain, and clarify all of the dishonest dialogue errors being introduced by the speaker's non-associated and non-related concepts. This consumes dialogue time and effort ... instead of spending that time and effort to debate Rand's actual views. So Rand's actual views are rarely being addressed. Rand distilled and condensed much of her philosophical work into an efficient set of virtues and values, along with the fundamental reasoning for them. Her suggested standards tend to upset people because Rand is recommending that each person think honestly, talk honestly, and live honestly while developing personal accountability. Many people would rather be lazy, they would rather act like victims, and they would rather live a pretend life ... because this requires less maturity, less mental effort, less physical work, less delayed gratification, and less self-respect. Instead of working on their own self-discipline and building their own responsibility, it's much easier to just straw man Rand by judging things that have nothing to do with Rand ... while pretending to be judging Rand. Anyone can observe this for themselves by watching Rand's video-taped interviews and Q&A sessions (many are posted on youtube or other sites). Rand will say something very specifically and thoughtfully to her host or panel or audience, and then the other person will launch into straw man, non-sequitur, red herring, weasel words, obfuscation, etc. The pattern is that Rand is making every good effort to talk straight, and then the other person seems to make every effort to talk crooked.
She was selfish and lacked empathy for other people and converted these personal failings into a "philosophy" that she attempted to illustrate in fat, badly written novels with highly implausible plots. In "The Fountainhead" people riot in the streets stirred up by.... an architecture critic! Yes, of course, wot?
The issue of the rape scene in The Fountainhead” has seen several papers appear in Journalvof Ayn Rand Studies - a journal founded by an old friend. From 2015, “Ayn Rand and Rape” by political and psychological anthropologist Susan Love Brown searchable online should be consulted on the question Was it real rape? And Did she intend it? professor Brown conclude “yes” to both. Here I limit myself to merely quoting the abstract:”The first sexual encounter between Dominique Francon and Howard Roark in The Fountainhead is known as the ‘rape scene.’ From the time of the novel's publication, some readers have found a contradiction between Rand's views on freedom and the violence within the novel. The ambiguity arises from the way in which the scenes leading up to the event are constructed, the sadomasochistic context of the novel, and Rand's views of gender and romantic relationships. Although Rand repeatedly denied that any rape occurred, this article concludes that a rape did occur and that Rand fully intended it to be so.”
Do you think that there is ambiguity during the scenes leading up to the event? Or do you think that it is 100% clear and non-ambiguous that Dominique intended and hoped for Roark to initiate sex with her?
The idea that Ayn Rand was as an agnostic, and not an atheist, is such a dishonest rationalisation for religious ideas that I stopped watching afterwards. Rand made it so clear that she was an atheist, and even stressed in the introduction that the passages about spirituality shouldn’t be taken as an endorsement of religion. I do not know if they said even worse things afterwards.
I read all of her fiction when I was 13 years old. It sounded very noble and heroic then, and deceived me into adopting a lot of godless values, while still considering myself a Christian. Now, as an adult, and a devout Christian who has developed a better understanding of these topics, I'm stunned to find intelligent men, well into adulthood, theorize that her nihilistic atheism, in which the only acceptable "god" is an economic system - can be compatible with Christianity. There is lots of virtue in capitalistic production, and doing one's work with integrity to the Glory of God, but there is no virtue in selfishness - and no virtue in working for one's own glory.
At 11:24 "she was more agnostic than atheistic" and "she believed in a greater power". Way to demonstrate that you have no understanding of Rand at all.
Good ideas overall, much well said about this great book ...except for a failure to deeply analyze / understand / define what "selfishness" and "altruism" truly mean, as Rand explains. Unfortunately, these are the critical foundations of everything else, and failing to understand that foundation leaves the good ideas expressed here floating on an irrational / contradictory foundation. It's a case of trying to take the structure of selfishness, and base it on a foundation of altruism. Selfishness does NOT mean disregarding or harming others, that is almost always self destructive ...selfishness does mean aiding others when it benefits you, (psychologically, long term socially, big picture societal, etc.), which is often. That's exchange. Often that exchange is more tangible trade (money, things) for satisfaction of helping people, or systems, or ideas you value. Selfish. Altruism is the opposite. It's something for nothing. It's giving to people you don't respect or value just for the sake of sacrificing yourself.
My guestimate as to the rape scene: the book was written at a time when women were supposed to be reserved and wait until marriage. To resolve the conflict between passionate desire and being sexually proper for the day, she created a charged scene with a woman who wanted the man passionately but couldn't act on it during those days without being labelled loose. Many women's romance novels use the same set-up.
I'm surprised they didn't focus on Toohey more and the irony of Rand the atheist writing the most evil and Satanic character I have ever read. Toohey is clearly written as a demon from the woman who didn't believe in them. Also have often wondered what would have happened had CS Lewis and Ann Rand ever met each other to discuss world views. Would have been very interesting, and wonder if Lewis might have opened her eyes to the Lord. Anyway, good video! Perhaps you should actually review Atlas Shrugged as well to open the discussion further just as Rand did.
@@DrMackSplackem A mystic? You mean a Christian? Well, perhaps, but he was a very, very intelligent one at that, so he would have been more than capable of meeting her objections. The conversation would have been intetesting.
@@clemson1993 Christianity is just one type of mysticism, but my statement holds true for them all. Sure, he was an intelligent guy, and creative too, but there's no way she wouldn't have exposed his derangement in an open debate. I do agree though, it would've been interesting indeed.
@@soniavadnjal7553 I forget where I read about Ayn Rand's personal notes about C.S. Lewis. She was pretty scathing though, I recall that much. It might have come from Jennifer Burns' biography, which I no longer have handy.
As it happens, Roark’s big chance to scale the heights of creativity is a government-funded, low-cost housing project called Cortlandt Homes - which he ultimately blows up. Architects should be grounded in reality, there is a tradeoff between artistic fancy and roofs that don’t leak. The building of "beauty" as described in the book and on film looked like the average soulless, modern building or dare we say, soviet architecture. Ever wonder where the people who needed the destroyed housing ended up? The taxpayer dollars wasted?
I had a conjecture recently about women, war and genetics after reading a study about people who survived the plague. I pondered it after watching a documentary about the Mongols, and somehow, in the swirl of my mind, it related to Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead's very uncomfortable 'scene' and her desires which I did not want to grasp. Hold tight to your wigs... It would make sense for more women to survive the onslaught of armies who at least tolerated being raped. "Current research indicates that between 31% and 57% of women have fantasies in which they are forced into sex against their will". The strange thing, as a 'civilized' man, the implication still is from women, through expressed desire, words and deeds is, even if opposed 'on principle', you are seen as less of a man if you are not willing and able to overpower and 'ravage'. Just some idle thoughts on Ayn Rand and her rationalists given 'context'. I'll give this some more thought as I have time. The Fountainhead is interesting if you have never encountered Rand.. Atlas Shrugged is a particularly unreadable book, and I say this as someone who stoically made it through Sartre's "Being and Nothingness"...
I believe we are responsible for helping the poor, but that is a religious obligation, not a political one. God wants us to to help each other as a moral obligation, not a political one. Our love of mankind... our love of God makes us generous. Not the the gun of the government.
He stay clear of it. Just give a brief comment that he want it removed. Atlas shrugged explain more about "sex" and imo that's ayn rand explanation. Sex is honesty at it's naked truth.
To Rand this was not weird. She had an open sexual affair with a much younger man with her husband's approval. They did the act while he was painting in the next room. Then we the young man told her he was going to marry a woman she cursed him, banished him for her group of admirers and ruined his reputation. The woman was far from sane.
Logic demands that only one religion can be valid. God acknowledges the presence of imaginary deities.The first commandment is: Exodus 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before me." All religions have differing accounts of the origin of the universe, the nature of God, and what he has or has not said. Therefore, the law of non-contradiction is all that is necessary to understand that only one of them can be true. Furthermore, God knows he gave logical minds to mankind. So, he does not spend any effort trying to disprove things that every man already knows are logically impossible. ]
How do you get to hell? Very simple: claim that you're innocent. How do you get to heaven? Very simple: Admit that you're not Innocent, you're guilty and ask for mercy. How to know if you're guilty or not? Simply: Compare your life to the Ten Commandments God gave you in the Bible. Everyone agrees that if people followed the ten commandments there would be no need for governments or police. Do not lie. Do not steal. Do not commit adultery. Do not insult God by using his name as a cuss word. There are six more but let's just leave it at that. How many lies have you told in your life? Have you ever taken anything that didn't belong to you? Jesus said, if you look at a women lustfully you've already committed adultery in your heart with that woman. How many times a day do you do that? Do you use God's name as a cuss word? Would you do that with your own mother's name? If you answer these questions honestly you know that you're guilty. God can justly punish you and send you to hell. Ask him for mercy. His name is Jesus. It's as simple as this, The Ten Commandments are called the moral law. You and I broke God's laws. Jesus paid the fine. The fine is death. Ezekiel 18:20 - "The soul who sins shall die." That's why Jesus had to die on the cross for our sins. This is why God is able to give us Mercy. Option A. You die for your own sins. Option B. Ask for mercy and accept that Jesus died on the cross for you. ❤ *Honest questions are welcome.* >>>
But your basing that on the Bible. That doesn’t make any sense. There are too many different types of people in the World for only one religion to be right for everybody. And different religions are largely based on the cultural values of a specific time and place and the religion was developed as a guideline for moral discipline,
Good analysis. These weren't literary characters but types. The book is used in some college writing courses as an example of bad writing. Rand had to take it to many publishers before anyone would touch it. It became very popular because if was the first book to show a woman in lust and displays women's real feelings about relationships. As a trash novel it became popular through word of mouth as most critics called it junk. When a film was made of it, Rand insisted on using her language word for word in the script she wrote. After it was filmed she said it was the worst film she had ever seen. It really stretches anyone's imagination that the public would be interested in a newspaper column about architecture. It also strains anyone's belief that a man could stand trial for willfully destroying private property and then claim that it was was his ideals that were compromised. The book is not taught in any class on literature or philosophy is any university on earth . Finally, the last time I saw it referenced was in the film "Dirty Dancing" where a very loathsome character uses it to defend his treatment of women. "Read it," he says, "It shows you how some folks count and others don't". And he gets his comeuppance after that. Hey trash is trash.. I still don't know how Roark could get away with designing anything since he lacked a degree and a certification but logic was never a strong thing in Rand's books.
I read it because a friend suggested it to me. He never talked about the woman in it. He just said it was a very interesting outlook on the world. I've read it a few times...and when I suggest it to people, I do it because of how essential Howard's attitude is to have. Too many people are out there thinking that the world owes them something. Howard's attitude was that he needed to make his own way. The world needs this attitude. Too many people just aren't doing their jobs or choosing to take care of themselves. It's a great book. It's in my top ten list. What other people say that it is, is not necessarily what it is. And nowadays with there being so many people who don't care at all about ethics or morality, I would depend less on the opinions of the naysayers than ever before.
@@JonsDDVlog Roark has his own ideas of ethics and morality. He thought it was justified to destroy private property because it was a blow to his ego. And his name wasn't even on it. I'd really suggest you see the movie because it's so awful I was convinced the book was nothing like it.
@@alg11297 You don't understand Howard Roark. It seems that your worldview is so skewed against anything conservative that you can't see any other viewpoint other than your own. He did the whole thing for free. It was probably months of work. It wasn't ego at all. He just wanted, what he considered to be a great building to exist...and to be used. He wanted, what he considered to be perfection, made by him, to exist somewhere on the planet. That was the only reward he asked for. If he had gotten that, he would have been content. When they took his creation and decorated it up like a Christmas tree, he probably felt personally offended. Not only did his perfection not exist, but his creation, his child (as a fellow artist, that's how we see our work) was put out for all to see, marred and belittled, forever. Peter Keating made a promise that his plans would not be changed. He didn't keep his promise, so, Howard Roark took back his part of the bargain. Whether or not he was morally in his rights to do it is another thing. I personally wouldn't have. I also wouldn't have trusted Peter Keating with such a promise. That character caved in at every opportunity. His entire life consisted of caving in. Had I been the judge or on the jury, I don't think I would have sided with Howard Roark. I understand his point though.
I think Ayn Rand liked it rough. Rape kink is probably the most common of the control kinks, of course plenty of people would say what they like doesn’t qualify as rape kink but we’re talking about a matter of degrees of the same kink. Do any of us really not just want to give in and not be in charge for a few?
10:55 Ayn Rand has explicitly said that she is "not a militant atheist," in exactly that phrasing. She is an atheist, yes. So, he's wrong there. 3/9/24, 1:57 p.m.
Knowles is only viewing Rand's work from his own religious conservative box, and not showing that he really understands her. He routinely rails against "individualism" elsewhere and is a collectivist altruist. Rand's outright rejection of altruist morality, which she acknowledges is the basis for practically every system that came before, is what makes her controversial, not the mere fact of her being an atheist. The fact that capitalism is a superior economic system and that it has lifted many people out of poverty is merely a happy coincidence; it is not the justification of capitalism. The justification is that it's the only system that says that man is free. Just making sure that her views aren't being misrepresented. She is not a conservative.
Agreed. Knowles is completely out of his depth here. There is a reason someone like Knowles ends up in a conservative religious box. The box has a ceiling.
Thanks. I always loved this book. I always saw it almost a religious book with Howard being Christ and Ellsworth being the devil. The only problem I have with it is that it only seems to support those who are amazingly talented. It doesn't really say what all of those who aren't amazingly talented should do. It kind of feels like the book is half-correct. Charity has its place, but it isn't really found anywhere in the book at all. It'd be nice to hear what Ms. Rand's opinions were on public libraries, student loans...etc.. How do those on the bottom reach the top? A lot of people are down there simply because they don't know what to do.
Rand came from the Soviet Union, so that permeated her views. The people at the bottom will always stay at the bottom, in any economic system. It's like wondering what to do about a building's foundation (thinking it's unfair the building tests on it): no matter the design or style the foundation will always end up at the bottom and the building on top of it. Why Rand could not care less about them: the "others" can always be replaced by "others". What she missed: that includes the bosses and the "Galts" who think themselves irrepleceable (Apple without Steve Jobs)
@@el_killorcure Wow. You're viewpoint seems amazingly scary. For the record, I came from the bottom. Because of guaranteed students loans, public school, etc. I was able to graduate and am living now in a foreign country teaching English. I'm not rich, but I have what I need. Without the loans, I couldn't have done it. Without public schools, even more so. Even if people are on the bottom due to their own foolishness, that doesn't mean that their kids have to stay there with them. Offering people a way to climb up is essential. P.S. Yes. I know that because of student loans, colleges started charging higher tuition rates thereby making those loans a necessity for most students; (the student debt epidemic.) Still, a way up is a big deal. Many people, will, grow if they are given the adequate information and resources. And, yes, you're right. Many others may simply take advantage of those resources to live temporarily fatter but still foolish lives...still though... People need to know how to succeed. And if you're parents aren't wise enough to teach it to you, people still need a way to learn it. Perhaps we just needed a better and wiser method of giving that help to people. P.P.S. I'm a Republican, btw. I'm also a Christian. I love Ayn Rand. Like I said though, she only taught half of what was required. Her method only works for those who are highly talented and highly driven. There are others though who will succeed if shown the way.
@@JonsDDVlog My viewpoint starts at "what she missed", everything prior is Ran's viewpoint. Apparently you missed that, alongwith Rand being an atheist, so trust me she definitely hated/despised people like you (and me, Catholic and conservative). I come from Mexico, and my parents from Lithuania as war refugees, so I know bottoms you can only dream off (mm, maybe that didn't come out quite right...)
@@el_killorcure I don't think Ayn hated/despised anyone. I certainly didn't feel any hate from Howard Roark either. She certainly disagreed with people, but I never felt any hate in her book. Howard pitied Peter Keating. He ignored Toohey. He loved Dominic. He was good friends with Wynand. There was no hate there.
Not to focus on trivialities, but wth, Puzder? Her name is Ayn (rhymes with pine), not Ann. You've been a fan for years and you obviously must know this.
Anyone else feel Knowles came off really weird here? Disregarding someone's core philosophy just because of you disagree with a few of their beliefs is exactly what you complain about everyday. Yeah, she doesn't belong to a religion. So what? Unless you are very conscious about your own beliefs, why do you care about someone else's? How does it take away from her main idea which is individualism over collectivism. I hate nothing more than stuff like this. You can't yell at the left's hypocrisy when you speak like this.
Hello user-dz9zc7gf3u. Your comment seems very relevant. This interview focus is an example of a less simple topic which deserves better thinking skills, deserves more nuanced understanding, and deserves more disciplined choice of statements. Mr. Knowles might be capable of providing a more accurate and helpful treatment of the topic, but I think that he failed to do so on this occasion. Rand's philosophy of Objectivism is largely (but not solely) focused on: 1) How a human being can obtain for themselves non-contradictory knowledge via a reliable epistemology. 2) How a human being can develop for themselves non-contradictory ethics via the development of a reliable moral code. These topics are highly relevant and practical for any person, and I think that we each must be careful about making any small mistake about essentials that could then lead the conversation into dishonest evaluations or dishonest conclusions. Some topics seem to deserve and require a more diligent mental effort to understand and communicate a more precise description of essentials. We probably should not ask a normal automobile driver to participate in a formula one race, nor debate & instruct others about formula one racing. We also probably should not ask a surgeon nor architect nor jet pilot to distort or dilute the essential aspects of their disciplines in a way that misrepresents the realities or the meaningful details. These topics require careful handling and better accuracy. Finer points about epistemology and moral code are necessary and meaningful for discussing Ayn Rand's philosophy. I think that it's commonly a mistake when someone (such as Mr. Knowles) is unnaturally diluting or bypassing these finer points in an effort to make their presentation more comfortable for listening. During this presentation Mr. Knowles (and Mr. Puzder as well) are saying several things about the essentials of Rand and Objectivism (and perhaps even capitalism) that seem noticeably inaccurate in important ways. Both men seem friendly and they seem curious about the right aspects, but during this particular presentation they sometimes come across like beginners who still need to make a real study effort in order to mentally grasp what they are talking about (for these topics). It seems like these two men BEGIN this conversation with their own decided faith and their own inarguable belief in non-objective mysticism (allegiance with immortal ghosts, sacred instructions coming from immortal ghosts, spending one's life earning approval from immortal ghosts, etc). They do not seem to grasp how this is an incompatible reversal with regard to the philosophy that they are attempting to evaluate and criticize. They do not seem to understand how their chosen premises are preventing their own evaluation attempts. These guys attempt to come across as credible evaluators of a philosophical system named Objectivism which has core tenets of using objective reality and verifiable facts as the predominant source of guidance. But their own admitted philosophical choices are prejudicial toward a conflicting view ... and several times during their presentation we can observe their own unverified metaphysical assumptions resulting in an improper non-credible handling of the topic-at-hand.
All doctrine unique to the Catholic church is unnecessary if Christ's sacrifice is complete. If Christ's sacrifice was perfect and he took away all sin past, present, and future than... Penance has no purpose. Purgatory has no point. Absolution is unnecessary. Need I go on? Yes, Christ's sacrifice on the cross is complete and Final. The Bible confirms this repeatedly. Flee this Anti-church. Trust In Christ Alone. Trust in him alone like you would trust a parachute. You can add nothing to a parachute by flapping your arms. Just as you can add nothing to the perfect and finished sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross for all of your sins. Do not cheapen the saviors work by adding mans tradition on to it. Find a real church that does not withhold drinking from the cup from its lowly non-priest membership.❤ *Honest questions are welcome.* ...
@@jgm_mackmen Well, people have different definitions for the term sanctification. Could you give me a brief description of what you mean by sanctification. Is it the slow process of becoming a mature Christian and learning to love God and flee from our own sin? Or is it a slow process of achieving our own righteousness and Holiness and thereby achieving worthiness to enter Heaven?
@@jgm_mackmen Well, the Apostle Paul called himself "the chief of sinners" and very strongly affirmed that he never stopped sinning. (See the end of Romans chapter 7.) Only Jesus achieved his own personal righteousness, he is the only man that deserves to go to heaven on his own record.
![[Live] : ONE 169 วันนี้!! "อนาโตลี vs อูมาร์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IK3YZVWuFJg/mqdefault.jpg)
I read this as a senior in high school. I read it, loved it, and then read Atlas Shrugged. I re-read them as an adult and still liked them and understood them at a different level.
You are supposed to like Ayn Rand as a teenager and then by the time you are 40 you are supposed to realize her philosophy is garbage.
@@christinacascadilla4473 Supposed by whom?
@@PrivatePrivate-so4if um…didn’t you ever notice that every politician who is into Rand happens to be a douche? There is a message there.
@@christinacascadilla4473
@@christinacascadilla4473 Dear Ms Cascadilla, I appreciate that the novel creates very strong responses and that Rand’s philosophy is not for everyone - including me. The book is, however, a fascinating and beautifully written work that stimulates discussion in a way few other novels manage to achieve. So to describe those who agree with Rand’s stance as “douches” lacks the sophistication inherent in both her arguments and literary style.
As a draftsman, architectural enthusiast, book lover & Libertarian I have always loved this book.
Good for Andy Puzder pointing out you don't have to like everything Ms. Rand writes. But at the end of the day, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are two of the best books ever written.
Thank you PragerU for talking about this book!
That book was one of the most inspiring things I ever read, I was about 25yrs old.
This book is even more relevant today . Thx Ayn .
One of the most politically profound novels there is, setting a remind for this one. I've read the book twice, I wonder what they'll have to say.
Outstanding episode. I finally read this book for the first time about 4 years ago in my late 40s along with Atlas Shrugged. It was like a shockwave as I read someone describing experiences I had in the corporate entertainment industry. Can’t keep recommending Ayn Rand enough though I always express the same concerns you both mentioned in the episode re: faith and sex. Her views on those topics aside, she should be required reading for high school students. Thank you for your work. This episode is exactly what I needed today for encouragement and inspiration for my work today. God bless you.
Read this over the summer out loud as a family (kids ages 9 1/2 and 13). Stopped every so many paragraphs/pages to explain/understand, but they loved it. My daughter (younger child), at times, predicted where things were leading, esp regarding Toohey. I thought it might be a bit early, but after the opening scene at the lake, the kids stayed hooked. (Side note, my daughter is named after a character in Atlas Shrugged.)
Is it Dagny?
@@kingamoeboid3887 Good guess ... Francisca.
@@VirtuousHereticKristin ok. Looking forward to reading it and then watching the films. I've only seen King Vidor's The Fountainhead and enjoyed it for not conforming under artistic creativity that's supported by talent.
@@VirtuousHereticKristin - The sweetest aside tale.
Men can only read Ayn Rand one way; Out loud standing formidably at the edge of acliff with a tempestuous sea behind you, wearing button down shirt rippling in the wind due to the first three buttons unbuttoned on a picnic blanket with your woman in a summer dress, grasping your leg and looking up at you, listening intently, enraptured at your every word.
I read the passage where Toohey reveals his motives to Keating while smearing potato chip grease on my wife beater. Does that count?
Well I didn’t read it like that… but now I wish I did!!! 😮😳
Hello Mr. Puzder.
I enjoyed how you efficiently described the philosophical purpose within America's founding principles and framework.
I also enjoyed hearing you talk about how you taught your children to ask "why". Such a smart thing you've done to help your kids grasp what's really going on around them, and to navigate their own life in good conscience with honesty and integrity.
Around the 20:30 mark of this video presentation, you say: "I do see how Rand means that selfishness can be a virtue because it benefits others".
I hope that you don't mind my saying that I think you are substantially misunderstanding Rand's conceptual meaning and her application of the word 'selfishness' when you characterize it as "benefit to others". It seems like such an important mistake on your part because:
1) Rand consistently explained and applied the word 'selfishness' in a manner that is NOT associated with "benefit to others".
2) Regular published definitions for the word 'selfishness' show the opposite meaning of "benefit to others".
So could you please clarify what you are talking about when you express that: "selfishness can be a virtue BECAUSE it benefits others".
Thank you in advance for any response that you might provide.
Read the book years ago. One of the books that influenced most in my life
There’s an interview with Steve Jobs where he said that one of the most profound moments he had was when he realized everything around him was designed. Someone had to sit down and figure out how to make what he took for granted that was all around him. Intention, design, production. Within a society like ours anyone can be this person. Not so much in other places…
Actually he took most of the aesthetics and design philosophy from the germans and the japanese.
@@franciscopalacios4638nerd
Hello Mr. Knowles and Mr. Puzder.
"Rape" commonly denotes criminal assault or unwanted coercive force with regard to touching or penetrating ... or perhaps threatening to do this to someone ... or even attempting to do this to someone while failing to get away with it.
In The Fountainhead and in Atlas Shrugged we can recall the described experiences, feelings, statements, and behaviors of each of the two female protagonists before, during, and after their sexual encounters.
Before her sexual encounter with Roark, Dominique is shown actively trying to make the encounter happen. As the daughter of the man who employs/pays her male target, she tries to use her position power over her target in an attempt to maneuver him into her bed. She is then shown lying to her target about a phony repair needed at her home that she wants him to fix for her - in an attempt to deceptively maneuver him into her bed. She is then shown aggressively chasing down her male target and initiating physical assault on him because she is upset that he is behaving indifferent to HER repeated seduction efforts. In these actions of this woman before their sexual encounter, does it seem like the woman is involved in a rape experience? No, it clearly does not.
During their sexual encounter Dominique is shown experiencing gratefulness, euphoria, and pleasure in a clear context of feeling personally fortunate about the encounter. In this activity of their encounter, does it seem like the woman is involved in a rape experience? No, it clearly does not.
Immediately following their sexual encounter, Dominique is trying to prolong and preserve her good memory of the encounter in her own admitted emotional mood of joy and appreciation. Later on after their encounter she is shown repeatedly remembering the experience in a context of happiness and increased attraction to the man, gratefulness for their sexual encounter, hoping to reconnect with the man, and yearning to repeat their encounter. She is then shown enthusiastically moving to the city where the man is living and working, with her own genuine hope of meeting up with him again. In this aftermath of their initial sexual encounter, does it seem like the woman is experiencing that encounter as a rape? No, it clearly does not.
In Atlas Shrugged, Dagny's sexual encounters (from her own perspective) are each portrayed as being consensual and appropriate for her, with zero thoughts or statements about it being unwelcome for her, or being assault, or being unwanted coercive force. After her encounters, there are no narratives nor activities that imply that she is upset or fearful or regretful toward the encounter or toward the man who she was with. She is then shown continuing to be friends with and continuing to have respectful interactions with each of these men following their sexual encounters. Does any of this seem like a woman who is experiencing it as rape? No, it clearly does not.
In both stories, sexual encounters are described as emanating from a mutual recognition of virtuous character traits. Sexual attraction between characters in Rand's stories is caused primarily by respect for the other person's values, their straight talk, their spiritual strength, and their earned accomplishments. The characters are attractive to one another because of their integrity, their convictions, their full responsibility, and their authentic delight with being alive. They are attractive because they do not fake life ... and they do not compromise to pragmatism or trends or trying to impress. The characters are not primarily attractive to each other because of their body appearance or their money or their status or their lust.
Also, these characters are behaving relatively modest and private. They are very selective and they are not sleeping around with many people. Some are shown going years without sex because they respect the serious importance of this special activity. When it does occur they are not using each other like an objectified sex doll ... there is a high quality of spirit connection for the two people, and there is an intention that their partner will experience good feelings about themselves before, during, and after the situation.
The sexual attractions within Ayn Rand's books emerge from a valuing of the other person's philosophical convictions and philosophical behaviors. Such situations are specifically used by the author as a device to celebrate valuable ideology and emphasize good character while contrasting this with the bad nature of other characters in the story. The scenes are NOT intended to be pornographic nor prurient. They are NOT included so as to appeal to a reader's sense of voyeurism or lust. The sexual attractions have an important philosophical meaning that is an integral important aspect of the story.
Mr. Puzder, you even implied that you wish Rand would have left these scenes out of her stories. You seem to be unaware about the philosophical importance of their inclusion, and you seem to be unaware about the ways in which their absence/removal would noticeably decrease the philosophical value of the stories.
I hope that you both will please explain for us why you have decided to frame this aspect of Rand's fiction as being negative, inappropriate, or disposable. Are you thinking that sex is dirty or bad or wrong ... instead of being beautiful and good and normal?
I don't want to put words in your mouth. Thank you in advance for any response that you might provide.
This is a fantastic and thoughtful comment. Thank you for sharing.
You're welcome Kristin. I think it's a fascinating story, and it has such a worthwhile theme and purpose.
@@mikeg2482 I agree totally. You gave words to my thoughts on the sexual aspects of Fountainhead (and also Atlas Shrugged). I said "Yes!" out loud as I read it. We read this book over summer as a family and my kids thoroughly loved it. (We stopped every so often to clarify.) My daughter's name came from Atlas Shrugged (Francisca), and she loves the connection with Ayn Rand more now. Anyway, cheers to you, Mike!
Well they are not experts, just fans. I am not sure they fully grasp Dominiques psychology. She is fairly complex.
@@jasonk8775 I understand what you are saying Jason.
Speaking for myself, Dominique seems pretty easy to understand, easy to like, and easy to appreciate. I think Rand did a good job of using her character to demonstrate what many people have felt about life.
It seems to me that when people comment about Rand or Rand's stories, they are often revealing something about themselves and commenting on their own inner dialogues. Their spoken commentary or criticisms are typically about something that has nothing to do with what Rand actually said, or what Rand actually intended, or what Rand actually portrayed.
I think that this is occurring several times within this presented video conversation. Rather than me learning about what Mr. Knowles and Mr. Puzder think about Rand or think about The Fountainhead ... I instead learned about what Mr. Knowles thinks about Mr. Knowles and what Mr. Puzder thinks about Mr. Puzder.
I still prefer Atlas Shrugged but this one also stands the test of time.
I believe Leonard Piekoff said Rand considered “The Fountainhead” ought to be read as an overture to “Atlas Shrugged.” I take this to mean that Atlas is an outline of longer, greater developments, that a full-scale Atlas demands. Rand and others then thought that Atlas should be a TV miniseries - or today, a limited series as seen on AMC and Netflix, ect. The two Texas shale oil billionaires backing Daily Caller’s move into entertainment and family friendly films now owns enough IP rights to Atlas and intend to do just this. Could be more than interesting. It could be a lasting classic of a classic - FINALLY.
I think fountainhead needs to be trimmed down by a couple hundred pages. It's funny because I didn't feel that way about atlas shrugged. The story and the characters aren't strong enough to hold me for the whole book, though the philosophy is very good.
I see the issue as bigger, which is that mediocrity will always be envious and resentful of Genius and if Genius is not properly protected it will be assailed, and if possibly destroyed.
Great book review. And thanks for the introduction to Mr. Puzder.
I'm an Architect and this was mandatory reading. I still enjoy it.
SCI_arc '86
Unlike Roark you actually have a degree and a license to practice architecture. Rand's knowledge of the profession was limited to her imagination and how she thought they acted. Like in Atlas Bugged, she had no idea how business worked or trains ran.
P.S. Don't forget about the Gary Cooper movie. The entire movie felt like they were just speed reading through the book. If you've already read the book though, it's a good film to watch.
Maybe. My own opinion is that despite Gary Cooper, the movie didn't come close to doing justice to the book.
@@jimdavies6764 It didn't. Not at all. You're right. Still though, it's a nice way to go through the book again and review it.
My dad introduced me to the book as it's one of his all time favorites. I've also known some great people throughout history like Orson Welles, Stanley Kubrick, Brian Wilson, Frank Capra, Richard Williams (animator), Bob Dylan, 2Pac, NWA, Charles Mingus and Stevie Wonder. All of them were talented to back up this risky decisions.
This influenced me to never conform unless I make simple mistakes. I'd only stick to things that're different.
Always good to hear my father has a warm and fuzzy place to find peace of mind. He loves Prager U. He also loved to silence us kids. My sister had to be extra silent with daddy on top. I miss my sister. About 30 years ago they found her remains. Dad said God needed to be answered to. I hear dad is still clinging to gods path. He watches clips of Prager U incessantly to reassure himself with bias confirmation.
A book review forum is hardly the place to fantasize about your "problems".
Great book, read it twice. Time for another read.
I have found that how much someone enjoys Rand is often related to how much they share traits/beliefs with the antagonists.
Yeah...... none of my Dem "friends" or relatives like her.
I doubt any have actually read a single one of her works.
The past 15 years I have watched their hate and ignorance really come out.
Trump put them over the edge of sanity though.
I don't trust any of them any more.
Don’t we all share some of those atagonists’ traits?
Same here, 23 years old, first year in college. Changed my life.
This was a great conversation. Now do the Satyricon! Thank you!
Great book! Thanks for discussing the ideas respectfully, even though you disagree with certain aspects of the book and the author's ideas.
Sounds like we all need to read or recommend this book !
I disagree with some of Mr. Puzder’s conclusions about The Fountainhead, but I’m glad people like him are reading her works and recommending them to others. Great interview, great discussion.
She was absolutely an atheist. She did regret using the religious terminology after she released the novel because she thought religion was on its way out. She uses religious metaphor because that’s what’s available to us in language. But redefines what the concepts mean in a rational sense. The kind of reverence one has for God she has for the individual… Or you can say Howard Roark has for his life.
That’s gay
She’s gay
@@cardboardcapeii4286 she was happy
Religious speak is like shorthand. Once you read the Bible it's like learning another language and instead of explaining the how or why of stuff you just call it evil.
She wrote an essay in the 70's called, "The metaphysical versus the man made", where she used the term, "the metaphysically given" as opposed to the man made. In a way, if you are religious, you can substitute the word "god" for "the metaphysically given" throughout the essay and probably agree with the whole essay.
Since nobody ever really defines god anyway, "the metaphysically given" is actually more descriptive and less confusing.
this book motivated me to become an engineer
The book is great, with that said
How is this book not a TV show? She wrote it so well that I literally felt like I was watching a TV show like Mad men.
Warmer bros made it into a movie starring Gary Cooper.@CentanniHolding
I've read all of Ayn Rand. I'm a little more liberal than she is is, but... She's awesome!
Mr. Puzder, what a great review despite the poor interviewer 👏
Great work Michael! Scooby snacks for you and Andy.
My allegiance is to Liberty, the Repubic and Democracy.
Hopefully this review will be better then his half hearted review of Atlas Shrugged.
Architecture!Beauty,Science!❤❤❤❤this amazing book happened to be in my little island kingdom 🏝,,, great novel!!!
Like others it was college for me. The Fountainhead had the same problem as Atlas Shrugged. No, not the economics, religion, world view but the characters. In the Fountainhead, Howard Roark remains a mystery, more a symbol than a real person. Dominique but especially Gail absolutely dominated. Gail is probably the best "could have been" hero I've ever read.
John Galt comes off little more than a summation of Rand's ideas rather than an actual person. It is Dagny and Hank that dominate the story.
Toohey is also a well written character. She developed his character very well. I come from an ex socialist country. Leftists here still operate in the same way as Toohey does.
a couple of corrections: Roark does not "allow" Keatings to take credit for his housing project, he insists on it- its part of their deal, he doesn't want people to know it was his design because otherwise it wont be built. also, Keatings doesn't go against his word not to change anything, he does everything he can to keep Roark's work pure, but these overseeing the project change it anyway. lastly, Rand is not a "militant atheist". Shes an atheist yes, but that plays a pretty small role in her philosophy and books. more accurately, she is militantly opposed to "mysticism", which I think is correct.
Best novel ever written The author does a great job making you think Roark is foolish for being so stubborn throughout most of the book Excellent buildup to the profound lessons the book has to teach I don’t think either Knowles or the other gentleman properly understand the paradigm of self interest vs altruism, but good attempt nonetheless
Just like Atlas Shrugged, great analysis of one of the greatest books of all time.
Just saddens me to see the amount of dislikes but also not surprising.
It’s literally what the book advocates. More people dislike it, greater the quality is. Every dislike is another epaulette for Ayn.
On the back cover of the book, there is a review from New York Times, phrasing the book… I also thought it was a genius and intentional irony… If I knew the master mind behind the decision to include a NYT review on the back cover, I’d fall in love them
Thank you!
I was given it as a gift because I reminded the person of Howard Rourke.
16:30 The Virtue of Selfishness is not a reaction to anything. It's an inductively derived conclusion that selfishness in a rational sense is a good thing. She basically shows how the facts of reality give rise to the position that valuing yourself as your highest value is logical and in harmony with reality. You live life as a valuer. Such people actually value others, that are worthy, to a deep level, because it's genuine. And you live as a rational man, which means you live long-range with rational principles.
A selfish person is this sense is the greatest of valuers of life.
3/9/24, 2:27 p.m.
Ayn Rand would probably hate PragerU
when she says selfishness she doesn't start with a full selfish to-do list. Part of being selfish is realizing that people don't know what is in their self interest, and the first rule of self-interest is to figure out what is in your self interest. It is a process that never ends.
it wasn't a rape. She had major psychological problems which needed to be demonstrated. Very few of her characters, despite what critics say(when they are lying about her)are pure from the beginning of her novels. They do show tremendous growth.
The whole point and lesson that you learn from dominique, is what SHE herself learns. You discover that you yourself do not have to go through what she went through, or worse, start how she was at the end and move backward and end your live like she began it.
The reason why Michael Knowles responded to this book more positively when he was young compared to now it’s because he is a Peter Keating type. He has conformed to a religion that subordinates the individual to God and to your neighbor. He has joined the conservative party, which is not a free thinking party. The movement thinks of morality as commandment-based and thinks that we have duties in this world. Get married, have children, have faith, and put God first.
The reason why young teenagers respond to atlas shrugged, and this novel so positively is because they haven’t conformed, and they want to achieve life… at a young age, you haven’t really had the opportunity to make profound choices.
But if you end up doing what everyone else does and copy what they do, like Peter Keating does when he copies the architecture of the ancients, then you will feel a repulsion towards a character who has not confirmed. And this is not just available for young teenagers… I first read this in my late 20s and was very moved by it. And there are many people who are much older than I who love this book.
If you’re going to make commitments to a group, make sure it’s a group that puts the individual first
You can't form a group that puts the individual first because a group requires something at a higher scale than the individual that binds them together. That's what distinguishes a group from a crowd. The libertarian emphasis on the individual leads inevitably to group disintegration.
@@brianbaker5555 that’s a mystical idea. There is nothing above the group. Good requires an evaluation, which requires and evaluator, which can only be done by an individual.
Human beings do not operate on a zero sum game- we operate by trading value for value and a group can be a value to the individual, but not over and above himself.
@@stefanburns3797 Well I wouldn't call it a mystical idea (but even if it was, I'm not sure why that's something to be blithely shrugged off as wrong), but more mathematical.
You cannot define a group without first identifying how the elements are related in meaning or purpose (a good if you will). For example, how do I group both forks and spoons in the higher level abstraction of "kitchen utensils"? I have to identify first how they are related and what purpose or good they serve. They are both metallic. They are both for eating. But each has their own unique individual characteristics.
@@brianbaker5555 yes but there is no group consciousness. The good of a spoon is a good to you for some purpose or even the way you organize silverware. There is no good in relation to the spoon to a knife.
And I would say that a mystical idea is bad because it is non-rational.
@@stefanburns3797 yes identifying a good requires us, conscientiousness, but so what? You need an observer to be able to do any groupings in the first place. You have to start from somewhere.
And yes but many things that are rational do not necessarily describe what is true. I can come up with a mathematical theory of the universe that is totally wrong. In fact most things that are reasoned are wrong.
I've read "The Fountainhead" and then "Atlas Shrugged" and enjoyed the aspect of the individual as a champion and also a point of attack by the users/destroyers. Also Rand's feeling regarding government social programs. As Michael and Andy mention and as a Christian, I was a bit put off by Rand's belief that anyone with "faith" is some kind of a primitive cave dweller. I guess she's never understood that God gives us all free will.
If that's true than who gave God free will?
@@DrMackSplackem God doesn't need anyone to give HIM free will since HE is the creator of free will
@@monso7871 So he had a choice in the matter; Cool, if you say so. Your other problem is that there is zero evidence for any of this. That's what makes it a mere faith.
@@DrMackSplackem Create life through the processes that modern-day scientists believe life was created. You also have mere faith.
If we are just animals who are controlled by our genetics and chemicals in our brain. Then how do you know that what you believe is even true?
@@monso7871 LOL, I'm not a determinist. Quite the opposite, in fact. Straw man away, though.
"Fountainhead" does feel rather like a rehearsal for "Atlas Shrugged".
"The Virtue of Selfishness" is a provocative title, and I think Rand meant it to be, both to enhance sales and to shake up fixed attitudes. The problem is that mostpeople think of selfishness as an uncooperative two-year-old shrieking because of some thwarted desire. It makes perfect sense to encourage children to share toys (to a reasonable extent) by pointing out that a transaction can (should) benefit both parties. The benefit of letting someone else play with your toys is the reciprocal benefit of their obligation to share theirs with you. It's only the one-sided "altruistic" action that isn't rational.
Conspicuous self-denial is usually virtue-signalling. Mother Theresa (regardless of how little underwear she owned) may have comforted a few of Calcutta's poorest while deriving a sense of righteousness or empathy. The industrialist Tatas mayhave done muh more for the poor by creating jobs that lifted them from poverty, even if it's only from abject to modest.
32:00 "And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake."
It is not to the generosity of the butcher, the baker or the Brewer that we owe our dinner.
You should do "Fahrenheit 451" sometime! Ray Bradbury's insights into how technology has generated apathy among human beings, the suppression and destruction of actual knowledge and understanding in favor of blind and willful ignorance,
It is all extremely prescient and fascinating, and for a book written back in the 1950s even!
Was hoping for a bit of Edward Hopper, given the painting used on the cover. That’s another discussion altogether.
What was the controversy with Ayn Rand's work and life?
People who create controversy with Rand's work tend to be afraid of telling the truth and afraid of facing the truth.
From an early age most peoples' care givers and trusted teachers and media messaging have been asking them to fake what they feel, fake what they think, fake what they want, and fake what they are committed to. Rand was opposed to all of this fakery, and people often want to defend their own right to live a fake pretended life.
Anyone can discuss Rand's materials and views - it simply requires an honest approach. But most people are accustomed to using a dishonest approach during their dialogues. Most of life encourages and enables and allows a dishonest approach for dialogues, and this makes Rand appear controversial.
People who claim that they dislike Ayn Rand tend to show a common pattern of doing two things:
1) They use straw mans. They misrepresent Rand's proposition which she actually authored, and then they show themselves trying to defeat their own fabricated idea instead of trying to defeat Rand's actual idea.
2) They irrationally and unfairly ADD a variety of non-associated and non-related concepts in their efforts to smear Rand. For example ... "Ayn Rand was in favor of free trade on an open market and therefore she is a bad person because look at all of the bad things that capitalism has caused". Then as a listener you feel that you must try to unpack, point out, explain, and clarify all of the dishonest dialogue errors being introduced by the speaker's non-associated and non-related concepts. This consumes dialogue time and effort ... instead of spending that time and effort to debate Rand's actual views. So Rand's actual views are rarely being addressed.
Rand distilled and condensed much of her philosophical work into an efficient set of virtues and values, along with the fundamental reasoning for them. Her suggested standards tend to upset people because Rand is recommending that each person think honestly, talk honestly, and live honestly while developing personal accountability. Many people would rather be lazy, they would rather act like victims, and they would rather live a pretend life ... because this requires less maturity, less mental effort, less physical work, less delayed gratification, and less self-respect.
Instead of working on their own self-discipline and building their own responsibility, it's much easier to just straw man Rand by judging things that have nothing to do with Rand ... while pretending to be judging Rand.
Anyone can observe this for themselves by watching Rand's video-taped interviews and Q&A sessions (many are posted on youtube or other sites). Rand will say something very specifically and thoughtfully to her host or panel or audience, and then the other person will launch into straw man, non-sequitur, red herring, weasel words, obfuscation, etc. The pattern is that Rand is making every good effort to talk straight, and then the other person seems to make every effort to talk crooked.
She was selfish and lacked empathy for other people and converted these personal failings into a "philosophy" that she attempted to illustrate in fat, badly written novels with highly implausible plots. In "The Fountainhead" people riot in the streets stirred up by.... an architecture critic! Yes, of course, wot?
Could you do one on John Steinbeck's East of Eden?
The issue of the rape scene in The Fountainhead” has seen several papers appear in Journalvof Ayn Rand Studies - a journal founded by an old friend. From 2015, “Ayn Rand and Rape” by political and psychological anthropologist Susan Love Brown searchable online should be consulted on the question Was it real rape? And Did she intend it? professor Brown conclude “yes” to both. Here I limit myself to merely quoting the abstract:”The first sexual encounter between Dominique Francon and Howard Roark in The Fountainhead is known as the ‘rape scene.’ From the time of the novel's publication, some readers have found a contradiction between Rand's views on freedom and the violence within the novel. The ambiguity arises from the way in which the scenes leading up to the event are constructed, the sadomasochistic context of the novel, and Rand's views of gender and romantic relationships. Although Rand repeatedly denied that any rape occurred, this article concludes that a rape did occur and that Rand fully intended it to be so.”
Do you think that there is ambiguity during the scenes leading up to the event?
Or do you think that it is 100% clear and non-ambiguous that Dominique intended and hoped for Roark to initiate sex with her?
The idea that Ayn Rand was as an agnostic, and not an atheist, is such a dishonest rationalisation for religious ideas that I stopped watching afterwards. Rand made it so clear that she was an atheist, and even stressed in the introduction that the passages about spirituality shouldn’t be taken as an endorsement of religion. I do not know if they said even worse things afterwards.
I read all of her fiction when I was 13 years old. It sounded very noble and heroic then, and deceived me into adopting a lot of godless values, while still considering myself a Christian. Now, as an adult, and a devout Christian who has developed a better understanding of these topics, I'm stunned to find intelligent men, well into adulthood, theorize that her nihilistic atheism, in which the only acceptable "god" is an economic system - can be compatible with Christianity. There is lots of virtue in capitalistic production, and doing one's work with integrity to the Glory of God, but there is no virtue in selfishness - and no virtue in working for one's own glory.
At 11:24 "she was more agnostic than atheistic" and "she believed in a greater power". Way to demonstrate that you have no understanding of Rand at all.
Much better book than Atlas Shrugged. Atlas Shrugged was written for those that didn't get the message first from The Fountainhead.
Good ideas overall, much well said about this great book ...except for a failure to deeply analyze / understand / define what "selfishness" and "altruism" truly mean, as Rand explains. Unfortunately, these are the critical foundations of everything else, and failing to understand that foundation leaves the good ideas expressed here floating on an irrational / contradictory foundation. It's a case of trying to take the structure of selfishness, and base it on a foundation of altruism. Selfishness does NOT mean disregarding or harming others, that is almost always self destructive ...selfishness does mean aiding others when it benefits you, (psychologically, long term socially, big picture societal, etc.), which is often. That's exchange. Often that exchange is more tangible trade (money, things) for satisfaction of helping people, or systems, or ideas you value. Selfish. Altruism is the opposite. It's something for nothing. It's giving to people you don't respect or value just for the sake of sacrificing yourself.
My guestimate as to the rape scene: the book was written at a time when women were supposed to be reserved and wait until marriage. To resolve the conflict between passionate desire and being sexually proper for the day, she created a charged scene with a woman who wanted the man passionately but couldn't act on it during those days without being labelled loose. Many women's romance novels use the same set-up.
More books to add to my list
I'm surprised they didn't focus on Toohey more and the irony of Rand the atheist writing the most evil and Satanic character I have ever read. Toohey is clearly written as a demon from the woman who didn't believe in them. Also have often wondered what would have happened had CS Lewis and Ann Rand ever met each other to discuss world views. Would have been very interesting, and wonder if Lewis might have opened her eyes to the Lord. Anyway, good video! Perhaps you should actually review Atlas Shrugged as well to open the discussion further just as Rand did.
C.S. Lewis was a mystic, so, no.
@@DrMackSplackem A mystic? You mean a Christian? Well, perhaps, but he was a very, very intelligent one at that, so he would have been more than capable of meeting her objections. The conversation would have been intetesting.
@@clemson1993 Christianity is just one type of mysticism, but my statement holds true for them all.
Sure, he was an intelligent guy, and creative too, but there's no way she wouldn't have exposed his derangement in an open debate. I do agree though, it would've been interesting indeed.
@@DrMackSplackemThe notion of a very logical and analytical person like CS Lewis being thought of as "deranged" is truly an interesting concept.
@@soniavadnjal7553 I forget where I read about Ayn Rand's personal notes about C.S. Lewis. She was pretty scathing though, I recall that much. It might have come from Jennifer Burns' biography, which I no longer have handy.
As it happens, Roark’s big chance to scale the heights of creativity is a government-funded, low-cost housing project called Cortlandt Homes - which he ultimately blows up. Architects should be grounded in reality, there is a tradeoff between artistic fancy and roofs that don’t leak.
The building of "beauty" as described in the book and on film looked like the average soulless, modern building or dare we say, soviet architecture.
Ever wonder where the people who needed the destroyed housing ended up? The taxpayer dollars wasted?
I had a conjecture recently about women, war and genetics after reading a study about people who survived the plague. I pondered it after watching a documentary about the Mongols, and somehow, in the swirl of my mind, it related to Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead's very uncomfortable 'scene' and her desires which I did not want to grasp. Hold tight to your wigs... It would make sense for more women to survive the onslaught of armies who at least tolerated being raped. "Current research indicates that between 31% and 57% of women have fantasies in which they are forced into sex against their will". The strange thing, as a 'civilized' man, the implication still is from women, through expressed desire, words and deeds is, even if opposed 'on principle', you are seen as less of a man if you are not willing and able to overpower and 'ravage'. Just some idle thoughts on Ayn Rand and her rationalists given 'context'. I'll give this some more thought as I have time. The Fountainhead is interesting if you have never encountered Rand.. Atlas Shrugged is a particularly unreadable book, and I say this as someone who stoically made it through Sartre's "Being and Nothingness"...
I just watched the Netflix live-action One Piece. It was really good. Serious question: Is Luffy the perfect Randian hero?
I believe we are responsible for helping the poor, but that is a religious obligation, not a political one. God wants us to to help each other as a moral obligation, not a political one. Our love of mankind... our love of God makes us generous. Not the the gun of the government.
Are they going to talk about the weird sexual relationship
Or the fanaticism Ayn Rand had for a child deleter?
He stay clear of it. Just give a brief comment that he want it removed.
Atlas shrugged explain more about "sex" and imo that's ayn rand explanation. Sex is honesty at it's naked truth.
Weird? She just likes it a bit rougher then most, you might set the temp at 70 she just likes it set to 80.
To Rand this was not weird. She had an open sexual affair with a much younger man with her husband's approval. They did the act while he was painting in the next room. Then we the young man told her he was going to marry a woman she cursed him, banished him for her group of admirers and ruined his reputation. The woman was far from sane.
I LOVE THE FOUNTAINHEAD..”Selling your soul is easy. People do it every day. It’s keeping your soul that’s hard.” Peter Keating just couldn’t do it…
Logic demands that only one religion can be valid.
God acknowledges the presence of imaginary deities.The first commandment is:
Exodus 20:3
"You shall have no other gods before me."
All religions have differing accounts of the origin of the universe, the nature of God, and what he has or has not said. Therefore, the law of non-contradiction is all that is necessary to understand that only one of them can be true.
Furthermore, God knows he gave logical minds to mankind.
So, he does not spend any effort trying to disprove things that every man already knows are logically impossible.
]
How do you get to hell?
Very simple: claim that you're innocent.
How do you get to heaven?
Very simple: Admit that you're not Innocent, you're guilty and ask for mercy.
How to know if you're guilty or not?
Simply: Compare your life to the Ten Commandments God gave you in the Bible.
Everyone agrees that if people followed the ten commandments there would be no need for governments or police.
Do not lie.
Do not steal.
Do not commit adultery.
Do not insult God by using his name as a cuss word.
There are six more but let's just leave it at that.
How many lies have you told in your life?
Have you ever taken anything that didn't belong to you?
Jesus said, if you look at a women lustfully you've already committed adultery in your heart with that woman.
How many times a day do you do that?
Do you use God's name as a cuss word?
Would you do that with your own mother's name?
If you answer these questions honestly you know that you're guilty.
God can justly punish you and send you to hell.
Ask him for mercy.
His name is Jesus. It's as simple as this, The Ten Commandments are called the moral law. You and I broke God's laws. Jesus paid the fine.
The fine is death.
Ezekiel 18:20 -
"The soul who sins shall die."
That's why Jesus had to die on the cross for our sins. This is why God is able to give us Mercy.
Option A.
You die for your own sins.
Option B.
Ask for mercy and accept that Jesus died on the cross for you.
❤
*Honest questions are welcome.*
>>>
But your basing that on the Bible. That doesn’t make any sense. There are too many different types of people in the World for only one religion to be right for everybody. And different religions are largely based on the cultural values of a specific time and place and the religion was developed as a guideline for moral discipline,
@@girlonamission1685 Answer these questions honestly, please.
I wonder if she had Asperger’s
See “Answer to Ayn Rand (a critique of the philosophy of objectivism) by John W Robbins (if you can find a copy)
Socmed TRUTH Social Worldwide Now.
To believe the "snuggle struggle" reference is unnecessary is to not understand the character of Dominique Francon.
How can this video >430k views and less than 700 likes?!
Good analysis. These weren't literary characters but types. The book is used in some college writing courses as an example of bad writing. Rand had to take it to many publishers before anyone would touch it. It became very popular because if was the first book to show a woman in lust and displays women's real feelings about relationships. As a trash novel it became popular through word of mouth as most critics called it junk. When a film was made of it, Rand insisted on using her language word for word in the script she wrote. After it was filmed she said it was the worst film she had ever seen. It really stretches anyone's imagination that the public would be interested in a newspaper column about architecture. It also strains anyone's belief that a man could stand trial for willfully destroying private property and then claim that it was was his ideals that were compromised. The book is not taught in any class on literature or philosophy is any university on earth . Finally, the last time I saw it referenced was in the film "Dirty Dancing" where a very loathsome character uses it to defend his treatment of women. "Read it," he says, "It shows you how some folks count and others don't". And he gets his comeuppance after that. Hey trash is trash.. I still don't know how Roark could get away with designing anything since he lacked a degree and a certification but logic was never a strong thing in Rand's books.
I read it because a friend suggested it to me. He never talked about the woman in it. He just said it was a very interesting outlook on the world. I've read it a few times...and when I suggest it to people, I do it because of how essential Howard's attitude is to have. Too many people are out there thinking that the world owes them something. Howard's attitude was that he needed to make his own way. The world needs this attitude. Too many people just aren't doing their jobs or choosing to take care of themselves. It's a great book. It's in my top ten list.
What other people say that it is, is not necessarily what it is. And nowadays with there being so many people who don't care at all about ethics or morality, I would depend less on the opinions of the naysayers than ever before.
@@JonsDDVlog Roark has his own ideas of ethics and morality. He thought it was justified to destroy private property because it was a blow to his ego. And his name wasn't even on it. I'd really suggest you see the movie because it's so awful I was convinced the book was nothing like it.
@@alg11297 You don't understand Howard Roark. It seems that your worldview is so skewed against anything conservative that you can't see any other viewpoint other than your own.
He did the whole thing for free. It was probably months of work. It wasn't ego at all. He just wanted, what he considered to be a great building to exist...and to be used. He wanted, what he considered to be perfection, made by him, to exist somewhere on the planet. That was the only reward he asked for. If he had gotten that, he would have been content. When they took his creation and decorated it up like a Christmas tree, he probably felt personally offended. Not only did his perfection not exist, but his creation, his child (as a fellow artist, that's how we see our work) was put out for all to see, marred and belittled, forever.
Peter Keating made a promise that his plans would not be changed. He didn't keep his promise, so, Howard Roark took back his part of the bargain. Whether or not he was morally in his rights to do it is another thing. I personally wouldn't have. I also wouldn't have trusted Peter Keating with such a promise. That character caved in at every opportunity. His entire life consisted of caving in. Had I been the judge or on the jury, I don't think I would have sided with Howard Roark. I understand his point though.
@@JonsDDVlog wow..great way of defending and reconciling pure selfishness. The book was and is trash.
@@JonsDDVlog th-cam.com/video/uJkrCBZNL6c/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Q3gPv6YaZ2wb7H5l Possibly the only reference to this book in modern culture.
I think Ayn Rand liked it rough. Rape kink is probably the most common of the control kinks, of course plenty of people would say what they like doesn’t qualify as rape kink but we’re talking about a matter of degrees of the same kink. Do any of us really not just want to give in and not be in charge for a few?
10:55 Ayn Rand has explicitly said that she is "not a militant atheist," in exactly that phrasing. She is an atheist, yes. So, he's wrong there.
3/9/24, 1:57 p.m.
Dagny Taggart is the perfect american hero.
Knowles is only viewing Rand's work from his own religious conservative box, and not showing that he really understands her. He routinely rails against "individualism" elsewhere and is a collectivist altruist. Rand's outright rejection of altruist morality, which she acknowledges is the basis for practically every system that came before, is what makes her controversial, not the mere fact of her being an atheist.
The fact that capitalism is a superior economic system and that it has lifted many people out of poverty is merely a happy coincidence; it is not the justification of capitalism. The justification is that it's the only system that says that man is free.
Just making sure that her views aren't being misrepresented. She is not a conservative.
Agreed. Knowles is completely out of his depth here. There is a reason someone like Knowles ends up in a conservative religious box. The box has a ceiling.
Thanks. I always loved this book. I always saw it almost a religious book with Howard being Christ and Ellsworth being the devil. The only problem I have with it is that it only seems to support those who are amazingly talented. It doesn't really say what all of those who aren't amazingly talented should do. It kind of feels like the book is half-correct. Charity has its place, but it isn't really found anywhere in the book at all.
It'd be nice to hear what Ms. Rand's opinions were on public libraries, student loans...etc.. How do those on the bottom reach the top? A lot of people are down there simply because they don't know what to do.
Rand came from the Soviet Union, so that permeated her views.
The people at the bottom will always stay at the bottom, in any economic system.
It's like wondering what to do about a building's foundation (thinking it's unfair the building tests on it): no matter the design or style the foundation will always end up at the bottom and the building on top of it.
Why Rand could not care less about them: the "others" can always be replaced by "others".
What she missed: that includes the bosses and the "Galts" who think themselves irrepleceable (Apple without Steve Jobs)
@@el_killorcure Wow. You're viewpoint seems amazingly scary.
For the record, I came from the bottom. Because of guaranteed students loans, public school, etc. I was able to graduate and am living now in a foreign country teaching English. I'm not rich, but I have what I need. Without the loans, I couldn't have done it. Without public schools, even more so. Even if people are on the bottom due to their own foolishness, that doesn't mean that their kids have to stay there with them. Offering people a way to climb up is essential.
P.S. Yes. I know that because of student loans, colleges started charging higher tuition rates thereby making those loans a necessity for most students; (the student debt epidemic.) Still, a way up is a big deal. Many people, will, grow if they are given the adequate information and resources. And, yes, you're right. Many others may simply take advantage of those resources to live temporarily fatter but still foolish lives...still though... People need to know how to succeed. And if you're parents aren't wise enough to teach it to you, people still need a way to learn it. Perhaps we just needed a better and wiser method of giving that help to people.
P.P.S. I'm a Republican, btw. I'm also a Christian. I love Ayn Rand. Like I said though, she only taught half of what was required. Her method only works for those who are highly talented and highly driven. There are others though who will succeed if shown the way.
@@JonsDDVlog My viewpoint starts at "what she missed", everything prior is Ran's viewpoint.
Apparently you missed that, alongwith Rand being an atheist, so trust me she definitely hated/despised people like you (and me, Catholic and conservative).
I come from Mexico, and my parents from Lithuania as war refugees, so I know bottoms you can only dream off (mm, maybe that didn't come out quite right...)
@@el_killorcure I don't think Ayn hated/despised anyone. I certainly didn't feel any hate from Howard Roark either. She certainly disagreed with people, but I never felt any hate in her book. Howard pitied Peter Keating. He ignored Toohey. He loved Dominic. He was good friends with Wynand. There was no hate there.
@@JonsDDVlog Maybe hatred was too strong a word.
She definitely did not care for the weak (rational self-interest)
Missed the point of the sex of Dominic Fracon but ok
Why isn't Winand virtuous under capitalism if he made a fortune as a tabloid publisher?
For me Capitalism is based on Real-estate while Communism is based on corporate factory.
Not to focus on trivialities, but wth, Puzder? Her name is Ayn (rhymes with pine), not Ann. You've been a fan for years and you obviously must know this.
The end of Atlas Shrugged? How was socialism defined under the $?
She was a proponent of A is A type of communism that doesn’t taste bad.
curious that poverty in America exists even with capitalism creating so much wealth
It seems to me that all economic systems are Capitalist , Socialist as well , it is are they honest or fair and effective .
Let's read a book with the founder of Hardee's. This channel is off the damn rails. Isn't the guy who said that capitalism is about toilet paper?
I don't like the slow camera pan on the two-shot. It's unsettling.
🇺🇸
11:27
This is wrong. Rand was an atheist clear cut.
15:25 Ayn Rand said of that scene "If it was a rape, it was a rape by engraved invitation."
3/9/24, 2:05 p.m.
PRAGERU!!!!!
Anyone else feel Knowles came off really weird here? Disregarding someone's core philosophy just because of you disagree with a few of their beliefs is exactly what you complain about everyday. Yeah, she doesn't belong to a religion. So what? Unless you are very conscious about your own beliefs, why do you care about someone else's? How does it take away from her main idea which is individualism over collectivism.
I hate nothing more than stuff like this. You can't yell at the left's hypocrisy when you speak like this.
Hello user-dz9zc7gf3u.
Your comment seems very relevant.
This interview focus is an example of a less simple topic which deserves better thinking skills, deserves more nuanced understanding, and deserves more disciplined choice of statements.
Mr. Knowles might be capable of providing a more accurate and helpful treatment of the topic, but I think that he failed to do so on this occasion.
Rand's philosophy of Objectivism is largely (but not solely) focused on:
1) How a human being can obtain for themselves non-contradictory knowledge via a reliable epistemology.
2) How a human being can develop for themselves non-contradictory ethics via the development of a reliable moral code.
These topics are highly relevant and practical for any person, and I think that we each must be careful about making any small mistake about essentials that could then lead the conversation into dishonest evaluations or dishonest conclusions.
Some topics seem to deserve and require a more diligent mental effort to understand and communicate a more precise description of essentials. We probably should not ask a normal automobile driver to participate in a formula one race, nor debate & instruct others about formula one racing. We also probably should not ask a surgeon nor architect nor jet pilot to distort or dilute the essential aspects of their disciplines in a way that misrepresents the realities or the meaningful details. These topics require careful handling and better accuracy.
Finer points about epistemology and moral code are necessary and meaningful for discussing Ayn Rand's philosophy. I think that it's commonly a mistake when someone (such as Mr. Knowles) is unnaturally diluting or bypassing these finer points in an effort to make their presentation more comfortable for listening.
During this presentation Mr. Knowles (and Mr. Puzder as well) are saying several things about the essentials of Rand and Objectivism (and perhaps even capitalism) that seem noticeably inaccurate in important ways.
Both men seem friendly and they seem curious about the right aspects, but during this particular presentation they sometimes come across like beginners who still need to make a real study effort in order to mentally grasp what they are talking about (for these topics).
It seems like these two men BEGIN this conversation with their own decided faith and their own inarguable belief in non-objective mysticism (allegiance with immortal ghosts, sacred instructions coming from immortal ghosts, spending one's life earning approval from immortal ghosts, etc). They do not seem to grasp how this is an incompatible reversal with regard to the philosophy that they are attempting to evaluate and criticize. They do not seem to understand how their chosen premises are preventing their own evaluation attempts.
These guys attempt to come across as credible evaluators of a philosophical system named Objectivism which has core tenets of using objective reality and verifiable facts as the predominant source of guidance. But their own admitted philosophical choices are prejudicial toward a conflicting view ... and several times during their presentation we can observe their own unverified metaphysical assumptions resulting in an improper non-credible handling of the topic-at-hand.
I call the world we are seeing today, unfortunately, the triumph of Ellsworth Monkton Toohey.
Don't think Andy Puzder represents collectivism as what is typically referred to as collectivism.
he's got the Hebrew/English Koren bible (Jewish) on his table
All doctrine unique to the Catholic church is unnecessary if Christ's sacrifice is complete.
If Christ's sacrifice was perfect and he took away all sin past, present, and future than...
Penance has no purpose.
Purgatory has no point.
Absolution is unnecessary.
Need I go on?
Yes, Christ's sacrifice on the cross is complete and Final. The Bible confirms this repeatedly.
Flee this Anti-church.
Trust In Christ Alone.
Trust in him alone like you would trust a parachute. You can add nothing to a parachute by flapping your arms. Just as you can add nothing to the perfect and finished sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross for all of your sins. Do not cheapen the saviors work by adding mans tradition on to it.
Find a real church that does not withhold drinking from the cup from its lowly non-priest membership.❤
*Honest questions are welcome.*
...
You may acheive salvation from Christ but isn't sanctification an on-going process?
@@jgm_mackmen Well, people have different definitions for the term sanctification. Could you give me a brief description of what you mean by sanctification.
Is it the slow process of becoming a mature Christian and learning to love God and flee from our own sin?
Or is it a slow process of achieving our own righteousness and Holiness and thereby achieving worthiness to enter Heaven?
@@yourfriendlyneighborhoodin1559 I guess I meant being made holy by the Holy Spirit over time.
@@jgm_mackmen
Well, the Apostle Paul called himself "the chief of sinners" and very strongly affirmed that he never stopped sinning. (See the end of Romans chapter 7.)
Only Jesus achieved his own personal righteousness, he is the only man that deserves to go to heaven on his own record.
@@yourfriendlyneighborhoodin1559 ok, thank you for your time
The book was terrible. Terrible prose, a boring character who was pig-headed, and one who hated classicism.