Joas

I don't know. I don't have the scientific knowledge about psychology and psychiatry. But my opinion is that the subconscious exists and exerts a profound influence on an individual, many times overriding the conscious mind.

Emotion to her was a second class citizen. It has always been. Reason must always come first. Roark never made any decisions based on emotions. Or perhaps the demolition of the apartment complex was one? I would have to read that part again... He was unaffected by emotion in a very non-human way. For a mere mortal to try to mimic that behavior is silly. It just doesn't work for humans. But at the same time I totally agree that: If I were somehow able to always make rational decisions and lead my life purely through Reason, 99% of the problems and frustrations could be avoided. But then I would not be human, I would be some kind of god like Howard Roark. And I don't believe in gods

Thanks for your reply, that was insightful. Rand was addicted to smoking. Her Reason clearly failed to get her out of it. Addiction is a serious matter and that's the reason I've refused to try any drugs in my life, not even marijuana. I know if I like it, and I probably will, I'm in for a damaging emotional, physical and financial ride, and I don't want to risk that. I'm a black and white person, as much as Rand was. But I know that life, and the mind/brain, is not black and white. I take the Fountainhead as a North to be followed, but taken literally it can lead to unfortunate consequences. I once read a quote that summarizes it well: "You ego will take you to the top, and it will leave you there alone." And who really wants to be alone in this world? Not even Howard Roark or Ayn Rand.

This is my first post. As a person who read The Fountainhead 3 or 4 times cover-to-cover, starting in my youth, I can confidently say that it has shaped my life. I'm now in my late 40s. So going straight to the point: I agree with everything the book describes, when it comes to Rand's philosophy: Integrity, Self-Esteem, Rational Egoism, Capitalism, Self-Interest, Work Ethics, Purposeful and Uncompromising life, and so on. What I don't agree with, and that comes from my own life experience, from observing myself and others as they grow old, is that Reason (with capital R) triumphs over emotions. It certainly did for Roark, who is a fictional character. In real life, any intelligent human being can use reason in a variety of situations to avoid making emotional decisions. That's great. But my critique is how realistically someone can sustain a life commanded only by reason without being heavily influenced by his/her emotions. I believe this is impossible to attain, for the reasons below: Subconscious: A lot of our actions and decisions, specially when we quickly react to a stimulus, are governed by our subconscious. For example, when you are having a bad day and engage in road rage, this is not a rational behavior and it is not something you can easily control. My point is that we will react emotionally in a lot of situations, and you have no rational control over that. Depression: Unless you have depression, you cannot understand depression. Like unless you have sex, you cannot understand sex. As someone who has had depression, I can assure you: Reason breaks out completely. How can you win the lottery and be unhappy about it? It is so outrageous and unreasonable that one of the biggest problems with depression is the guilt feeling a depressed person will feel for his/her nonsense feelings and emotions. Just to be clear I did not win the lottery, it is just a metaphor, but being sad after you won the lottery is just as irrational as 2 + 2 = 3. For an intelligent human being, having 2 + 2 = 3 on his forehead generates a lot of pain and guilt. Is depression a disease? I don't think the medical sciences have figured that out yet, but we all know that it is a realistic human condition on all levels for a lot of different people. My point is: isn't the plethora of psychiatric conditions present in the world a direct indication of the unrealistic nature of a pure rational life? Sure, there are people who will never be depressed, and will never have any psychiatric condition, but I wonder what Ayn Rand would have thought about her pure rationalism approach to life if she had depression later in life. Addiction. I have never had a drug addiction. But who can naively say that they don't have any kind of addictions? I could be wrong but I would think that as long as you have dopamine in your brain, you must have some kind of addiction, on some level (low, mild or severe). Go ahead and tell a smoker to rationally quit smoking. Or go ahead and tell an overweight person to rationally eat less. Or go ahead and tell a kid to rationally quit gaming. Or go ahead and tell an adult to rationally quit sex/porn. My point is: you can be as rational as you want, but at the end of the day, your dopamine will have a huge influence on you. For example, Ayn Rand was irrationally a smoker as she most certainly knew the health consequences or perhaps just chose to deny it so that her rational framework could have been sustained. So in closing, in my opinion, Objectivism is not bad, it is not wrong. It is just unrealistic to expect that someone can lead a life purely based on reason while avoiding all the traps above. That will certainly lead to frustration and failure in the long run. I still love The Fountainhead, but I wish someone had told me that when I first read it.