seeker

Hi Adrian: From the comments I've read here and yours in particular, I am going to have to view the film again -- when I first viewed it - I had just finished reading TF and I think I was unwittingly expecting the book and the movie to be one in the same in most aspects. This is an unrealistic expectation for any book and screen play combination. Hence, I probably did miss something in a more profound way than I'd like to admit. In addition I've now read all of AR's books except Anthem and have read several other books about her and/or objectivist philosophy and find I am intrigued and absorbed by AR's life and philosophy even more than I was initially. I believe I will see it from a fresh prospective and more intense interest. I will be the first to admit that I have a hard time viewing films made in the 40's and 50's because I find most the acting to be too mechanical to be real - the opposite seems to be true of modern films where I think they are often too realistic/graphic in general. If TF were made today I would expect there to be torrid graphic depictions of sexual encounters among other things that would detract from the movies message. So each era has its own distractions -- but keeping that in mind may very well be the ticket to my enjoyment of TF, the movie. To be continued! :w00t: Warmest regards, Seeker P.S. I have not heard of Chaplin's "Great Dictator" or at least I don't recall coming across it in my 67 years on the planet -- I will indeed check it out! Hi Seeker Well you may or may not be missing something - people can take different views! - but personally I don't agree with you. I saw the film more or less by chance when it was shown in London a while ago - and I'd read both TF and AS first - and I thought it was great! I posted my reactions on objectivistcenter.com and hope you'll forgive my quoting myself here... I wondered how well TF would translate to film. My preconception was that movies are better at action than ideas. I'm conscious that Rand's novels are pretty intellectual and philosophical, and her characters have a way of breaking into long set-piece speeches which is arguably a bit un-novelistic and even more un-filmic. I've read with interest about the plans to film “Atlas Shrugged”, but wondered a little how on earth one could do it. I checked out what Internet commentators, including both movie fans and objectivists, had to say about the film,and got essentially a lot of gripes. Was Gary Cooper too old? Did the architecture look right? Was the sexual symbolism (drills, skyscrapers) too unsubtle? Was the romantic orchestral score a bit much? Would the images disrupt one's internal visions of the characters? So I went in with (I hope) an open mind, but also a degree of scepticism. I should also say that I'm more a reader than a viewer, and that when I do see films they tend to be modern rather than vintage. The last old film I remember seeing was Chaplin's “Great Dictator” (also highly recommended, by the way). In the event, I thought the film of “The Fountainhead” was absolutely great. Yes, it's a late-40s Hollywood movie and conforms to the conventions of its place and time. But then these guys were seriously good at making movies, and it's not hard to suspend your disbelief and live with those conventions. Yes, quite a lot of the content of the novel ends up on the cutting room floor. But then a good screenwriter knows that a film is something different from a book, and works with that, even if it's not the case (as here) that the screenwriter is also the novelist. Some of the incidents may have gone, but the message is intact. The movie – perhaps even more than the novel? - is absolutely clear and purposeful. Every scene makes its point and has its place in the argument. Not a word or a shot is wasted. I guess there are two ways of looking at the film. If you're coming at it as a Rand enthusiast, looking for a work of art you can appreciate, then see it – it's good. Another way of looking at it, though, is as a vehicle for advocacy and education in objectivism. Several times I've tried to introduce friends to Rand's ideas. While a paperback copy of “The Fountainhead” or “Atlas Shrugged” can be an inexpensive present, not everyone is immediately turned on by the prospect of eleven hundred pages of tiny print. I know some people advocate “Anthem” as a starter, and I can see why they do, although personally I find the fantasy setting of that book less compelling that the more-or-less modern contexts of the late great novels. I'd suggest that the film of “The Fountainhead” could well be a fine alternative easy way in to Rand's thought. I understand from amazon.com that it will be out on DVD very soon. (I only hope the US DVD works in Europe.) Best regards Adrian

I am pleased to read about the openess of this forum and the reasoning behind the "tolerence" give to those who are not atheists. I have not joined nor have I been on any other Objectivists web sites but from what I have read here most other sites are not so open to religious or spiritual postings that stray very far from atheism or for what they have defined as the objectivist philosphy. As I am very new to philosphy in general and to objectivism in particualar it is comforting to know that I can post questions that might challenge atheism in an effort to understand the entire philosphy, In my reading so far I find myself very much in accord with what I have understood and come to know about Objectivism. I had a very through and nurturing conservative evangelical Christian up bringing. I never felt coerced into believing what was taught. I never felt that Christians were living their lives out of fear of punishment for sin but out of love and respect for God. The Christians I have known all my life were never out to "force or coerce" their bliefs on others but also were never hesitant or ashamed to share thier beliefs with others who were interested. I have spent many years in studying the Bible and believe I have a through underestanding of it and its history. To me the Bible and its message is not nearly as difficult to understand as is philosphy. But both realms require much study to understand. I am therefore a seeker. As I study and read more about Objectivism, I can see reasons for challenging religion and spirituality in general. Or that the very least examining Christian precepts more closely. And I am doing just that. I know and realize that this takes much time and can not be done in days, weeks, months or maybe even years. I think that some of the critisim of religion I have seen in readings realted ot Objectivism have been based on ignorance and/or missunderstanding -- often it seems things are taken out of context. While I have no desire to evangelize people here on this site nor do I desire to be evangelized (so to speak) by athiests, I do have the desire to engage in rational discourses regarding both atheism and religion in genreal and Christianity in specific by posting questions relating to these topics. My question to you Michael, is can there be a Sub Forum established specificallty for the purpose of examining spirituality, religion, atheisim? Where questions and topics can be posted that allow for the free interchange of thought on this vital arena. I ask this because while I can accept that altruism and objectiveism are mutually exclusive, I am still struggling with questions like "What is wrong with having faith?" I do not yet fully understand why a belief in supreme being even thought there is no concete evidence of the existance of a supreme being is considered so condtradictory to Objectrivism" I am not sure I am explaining myself adequately but I do think that it would be helpful to post these sorts of things in a sub forum where thoughts and ideas can be analyzed, challenged and discussed in a rational manner. Your thoughts on this would be most welcome. \\Chuck

I just finished reading Fountainhead. Roark's agreement was to design and give Peter Keating the entire plans for the Courtland project and Roark had one and only one conditon : the project was to be built exactly as Roark designed it - with not even a single change - in fact Roark made it plain that he wanted nothing else in payment. Roark was the sole owner of his own business at the time. The justification for destroying the project was that it wasn't built exactly as Roark had designed it but that changes had been made to his designs -- modifications were made to add the classical look among other things. Roark had been betrayed not so much by Peter Keating as by the government corporation which had mandated the changes, Keating was powerless to do anything to prevent it.

I totally agree with Barbara here -

Yes Kat, I think it was that bad -- it lacked any background informatuion what-so-ever that would lead you to know who any character was and why s/he was doing what s/he did. I don't see how it would be comprehensible to anyone who had not first read the book.

I found the DVD the same way and when I recieved it - there was NO LABEL on the disk either. It also was "Universal" meaning it would play in any DVD player regardless of the region setting. I agree it is likely a pirated copy -- although ot was advertised as a legitimate copy! I could not find the information i had on where on the Internet I found it.

I found a copy of the Movie version of AR's The Foutainhead 1949 (Gary Cooper)- on DVD no less. I had no idea that this had been made into a film, so I bought it. AR was the playwrite as well. As usual the book was far better than the movie. In fact compared to the book the movie was senseless! Not one character seemed to have the slightest motivation for doing the things they did. Most apalling were changes made to the story such as Dominique leaving Peter for Gail Wynand breaking their ENGAGEMENT not their MARRIAGE. I am always prepared for the movie to fall short of the book. But in this case the movie was an injustice if not an insult to AR's message. I just could not believe that AR wrote the screen play. It was a deeply disappointing movie and from my point view failed to get AR's point and objectivism's message across. Appearantly I am missing something because the many reviews I read on line written recently by recent viewers (not professional reviewers) - raved about how pefectly the film brought out AR's philosphy. It was a stilted boring and stiff script that sounded more like the actors were reading from ther que cards and making no attempt to hide that fact. Shoddy at best.

I can see that my original post can lead one to think that I believe objectivism is THE answer. But I said it "seems" to be the one philosphy offering solutions, I was trying to indicate that the jury was still out and that I was uncertain. I did not intend for it to be a dogmatic declaration that Objectivism was the answer. However, Bob, you have made an excellent point that I need to read other philosphers as well. I plead ignorance of other philosphies - having only superficailly been exposed to some of them at best, The problem I have is that until I read AR's books I thought philosphy to be an intellectual game played by pompus fools who knew nothing about real life but thought the knew what was best for everyone else. Its hard to get past that thought. However, AR blasted me right out of my boots with what seems to make such perfect sense to me -- in a way sort of giving voice to some of what I have been thinking for years. She struck a resonant cord in me and hence my enthusiasim for objectivism. But having said that, I hasten to follow up with the fact that I am still very much a babe in the woods when it comes to objectivism or any other philosophy. Honestly I am having a hard enough time just getting familiar with this one philosophy that I am not ready to entertain the study of even one more philosophy at this time. My take on Objectivism so far is that it seems to be where the rubber meets the road - in every day practical living. (e.g. not a theory but an accurate analysis of the way things are and seems to offer solutions that make a lot of sense) But certainly a prudent man needs to critcally analyze the offerings of Objectivism and weigh them against what others have offered. A stage that I have not yet reached but know I must go through. There is much to weigh, I can easily see spending an entire life time studying, meditating, evaluating and reaching conclusions. For me at age 66 and retired, what I learn and how I incorporate in to my life will not have the same impact and value for me that it would have 45 years ago. I am not seeking knowledge for the sake of knowledge either - but some how at this point in my life, I want to understand what forces are at work, how they work and to what end they may lead in the living of life. Through AR's novels, I came to an epiphany -- that I have lived my whole life thus far with out any philosphy for living - or at the very least was not aware by what philosphy I was living life, nor did it ever occur to me that I could/should critcally analyze and clearly define it. So while it is late in my life to do this - it not too late to do it. If for no other reason that personal satisfaction leading to greater contentment with life. Perhaps even being able to leave behind more than an epitath on my grave marker. Hence the journey begins. \\Chuck

Thanks so much Ross - your articulated pretty much what I was thinking objectivism should embrace. I am greatful for your comments and suggestions. I am begining to see that the objectivism movement is surely mischaracterised by many people. Your comments regarding the postion of rigid doctrine and a closed mind seem to me to be right on. Quote As to the temptation to read Objectivism as being a grim duty to be rational even at the expense of throttling your emotional life, many have fallen for this and have become zealous so-called “rationalists.” The parallels to religious orthodoxy are obvious here, as the stern-mouthed “Objectivist” puritanically condemns anyone too frivolous or anyone diverging from his own narrow fix on what is “rational.” He might say: “The system is closed, damn it, so watch your heretical thoughts there, boy!” The perversity of turning a commitment to rationality into a religious-like dogmatic mantra, precluding further original thought, is grotesque, but it has been with the movement since its early days. The only emotions these puritans seem to feel are an intense need to belong to a creed, anger, and the love of lashing out at heretics. Centuries ago, you could find the same mentality gleefully adding sticks to the fire of an auto de fe. There is also a close parallel between the emotionally-dead “logical” Objectivist and fanatical ideologues such as some doctrinaire Marxists. end quote If the whole movement is closed -- would that not require a closed mind? Which does not seem rational to me! If objectivism is growing surely it must be developing greater insights leading to either refining its tennents or developing new tennents. So far I see nothing in AR's writings that indicate that her thinking alone is set in cement and that objectivism has been perfected, she did not claim to be omnipotent. It seems to me thta AR would object to that idea. I used to think that the US Consitution should be that rigidly adhered to -- but now I see that the founding fathers could not and did not forsee every circumstance and condition that would arise in the future, which is why they made provsions to ammend it. If with our rational mind we establish that a new situation exists that must be adressed in the constitution then change is required. Fundamentally philosphy must be constatnly evaluated and refined when needed to grow -- this seems especially true for objectivism. It seems to me that if it does not grow then it will die - whithering away and rotting from the inside out. Again, thank you for your kind and thoughtful remarks. They were very helpful. \\Chuck McCoy (Seeker)

Having only stumbled across Ayn Rand's book "Atlas Shrugged" about a year ago - and now having just finished reading "The Fountainhead" and "The Virtue of Selfishness", I am not sure that I even know enough about Objectivism to ask questions. I certainly do not know nor understand enough to enter into a debate or discussion in depth at this point. I also have read with great interest many of the postings of persons here far more exprienced with not only the philosophy, but also living as objectivists. Ayn Rand's books seem to have depicted with great reality what our nation our people and society has become and where it is headed. The parasite versus the producer, the contributer versus the taker, the Robinhood mentality of our government and economic system and the denegration of the indiviual for the "good of society" - all things being justified in the name of the "common good" - individual initiative and resourcefulness being discourged at all levels of society. capitalisim is evil, democracy decried, feelings are more important than thoughts and ideas -- all this and more are addressed and their results illustrated by Ayn Rand - all of this and more seems more true today than it was when Ayn Rand wrote her novels. Much of what I do see and understand of Objectivism seems to me to be the only philosophy that offers solutions to these fatal flaws - I am coming to believe that one must be blind not to see what our world has become and where it is headed, yet the overwhelming majority of people are either blind, ignorant, or have chosen to ignore it. Still, there are facets of Objectivism that seem puzzling to me. One of them is that it seems that the philosphy of Objectivism expects that man is to behave in such a reational manner as to totally deny that man is also an emotional being. In seems the objectivists ideal role model would me Mr. Spock from the old Star Trek TV series -- always saying "it isn't logical" and denying or with holding all emotions in every situation. But to me emotions are predominantly a human characateristic -- and even necessary to make rational decisions, especially where either all the facts are either not knowable or where there isn't sufficient time to consider all or even most of the facts. Also in the area of human emotions, love seems to be treated either superficially, or at best given gruging acknowledgement. I must confess, I am romantic , so the term love not only means that deep and abiding affection of a man towards a woman or vice- versa (father - son, mother - daughter, etc.) but the emotions evoked in beholding beauty of any kind (e.g. a sunset, a work of art, etc.). All of Ayn Rand's characters except Gail Wynand in "The Foutainhead" rarely speak of love in the romantic sense and when Wynand does I am not always sure its all that romantic. So musing number one -- does Objectivisim deny the reality and value of emotions all together? Is there not value in ones emotions recognizing that choices and decisions should never be based entirely upon emotions? Another thought I have along the same lines is that to a greater or lesser degree all raltionships involve some level of trust. The objectivist's position on trust seems to me to be summed up thusly: as long as trust is based on logical and rational, observable facts then trust is given. However no matter how much we may wish that everyone were totally open, honest, candid, and forthright - humans are seldom if ever so transparent that we can depend on our observations of them and their actions in order to garner the rational evidence that we should trust them. We must therefore rely on our intuition about them - which at least in part is based on our feelings about them and that is not rational. So where does and how does trust enter into the Objectivists life? In a post here on OL, (I am paraphrasing here) some one wrote that they do not and have not relied on the writings of others to reach their conclusions about life -- that they had reached their own conclusiosn about life long before with out books and that one should base thier life's philosphy only independant thinking. Seemingly the writer was agreed with -- does this also represent rational objectivist theory? Because the one thing that distiguishes man from the rest of the animal kindom is the acquisition of knowledge! Knowldge accumulated over time became cataloged in writings and books - for the benefit of future men! While we certainly should be thinking for ourselves, we can also have the benefit of the thinking and knowldge of those who went before us. Through independant thinking and evaluation we judge whether that knowledge is true, valid and if it has any benfit for us. I am confused about what objectivists then base their own life's philosophy on -- I don't believe that we are born with the capacity to reach conclusions about things with no input or only the input observable and exprienced by us alone? That does not seem rational to me. So how does one gain enough knowledge in order to develop ones life philosophy? There are a few more things that I am wondering about (religion in particular) but I shall save them for another posting. I only ask that anyone reading this remember that I am not yet even at the level of a novice objectivist and much of what is written will probably fall far short of what otherwise might be considered "common sense" for the true objectivist.

Hello again. I was a new member on the old site before it was hacked. I received a lot of nice welcomes and some really good reading suggestions from the kind people who belong to OL. My ffirst AR book was Atlas Shrugged. I've a penchant audio books and so this keeps me and my iPod glued together rather well. I am listening to Foutainhead now and already loaded on my iPod is "The Virtue of Selfishness" So far I remain very intrigued and am excited about learning more. I assumed that a reregistration was need to get back on the forum here - so that is what I did.