MovieChat Forums > The Fountainhead (1949) Discussion > A fool's game raised to a whole other le...

A fool's game raised to a whole other level

posted 8 years ago by Tom-Livanos
4 replies | jump to latest

If there is one thing which cannot be promoted, marketed - let alone mass produced - it is possession of an independent mindset. Ayn Rand, and perhaps a handful of others, did very well out of books such as 'The Fountainhead' and 'Atlas Shrugged', and the movie here.

Please bear with me.

You see Rand's disciples in documentaries about society every so often. Her output is also referred to by legislators. Some call it ironic. True. It is also tragic. What should we do next, kowtow to statues of Johann(es) Gutenberg? At least as I see it, she was (and, alas, remains) a swindler.

As you may have surmised, my suggestion is that 'The Fountainhead' (1949) and any of Ayn Rand's work can safely be ignored. Indeed, it ought to be ignored. The sooner it is placed as a footnote in human history, the better off we will all be.

This is not to say that possession of an independent mindset is to be avoided; just that it is a mistake to make a religion out of it. As such, yes, I leave you to make up your own mind. What I can say though is that there may be times when it is best to be joining in with the crowd, to dance because everyone else is dancing, to unite to prevent the release of something toxic to us all e.g. by virtue of human physiology.

Doesn't freedom include the freedom to join in with others and, dare I say it, to have some trust? In fact, this is a necessity. None of us has the time nor the ability to calculate/consider all the factors which have an impact on our lives.

[–] wolf-w49 8 years ago

Where did Rand ever advocate to "make a religion out of" the individualist mindset? If her readers have taken it that way, then that's their problem. She's not responsible for their misapplication of her ideas. ... She championed the individual will over the suffocation of the collective. Here, here! She believed in never apologizing for what makes you exceptional, never compromising your strength just so weaker, cowardly folk can feel better about themselves. Better that you live your life authentically, and let others see your example and decide to strengthen themselves based on your example, and if they decide not to apply their energy to self-improvement, then so be it. But no human being should be bent to the mediocre whims of the masses.

[–] Tom-Livanos 8 years ago

You write, "Where did Rand ever advocate to...?"

I take a step back a moment. Paraphrasing the rest of your comment, you say "lead by example". Well, that has been a piece of wisdom which has resonated with people down through the ages. What Ayn Rand did was to take all of this and express it in movies, books, speeches, television interviews...

Returning to your question. Personally, I am not aware of anywhere where Ms. Rand said that this philosophy - by no means hers - ought to become a religion. The fact that she has not written it or said it anywhere (so far as I know) is one reason why it is so insidious. Think of the media she used. First and foremost, books. That is a one-way communication. So too with television, cinema, radio... I suppose one could find ways to respond to her. How many would have the time to do it? Would any of those efforts somehow erase the initial releases of "her" philosophy? What now that she has been dead for decades? Died while I, to use myself as an example, was in my childhood.

In effect, she took a philosophy which - to my mind at least - was always admirable. She ripped the guts out of it, made some money, set up a foundation, has followers (how ironic, no?) and lived out a comfortable life. One that kings and queens of ages past would not have dreamed of. On that latter point, the same applies to you and I. That stated, neither of us needed to go to the printing presses to achieve it.

Life is life. We all have strengths. By the same token, we all have weaknesses. In all this, life is enriched for each of us if we at least tolerate one another. That each one of us is unique, yes, we are. Born that way. Even identical twins or triplets etc. live out a different life (and I have cousins to prove it). I do not need some author or "social leader" to tell me any of this. That, in a nutshell, is what I am saying here.

Again, my view is that the sooner Ayn Rand's work is assigned the value of a footnote in human history, the better off each and every last one of us will be. As an aside, a similar case can be made for the works of Marx and Engels.

[–] LesterFester 8 years ago

by Tom-Livanos » Wed Jan 20 2016 ... What I can say though is that there may be times when it is best to be joining in with the crowd, to dance because everyone else is dancing,... Doesn't freedom include the freedom to join in with others and, dare I say it, to have some trust? In fact, this is a necessity. None of us has the time nor the ability to calculate/consider all the factors which have an impact on our lives.

Yes, you are free to associate with anyone you choose. But you don't have the right to form a gang and impose your will on others who choose not to join.

FYI: In the 1930s and 40s the overwhelming majority of the German population decided to get up and dance.

" Three can keep a secret... if two are dead "

[–] Tom-Livanos 8 years ago

Maybe it is just me but your first paragraph and your tagline... well... errr... I do not consider them healthy or helpful. What now? Let us allow serial killers to continue doing their thing? Nothing to do with politics or dictators, do we let individual serial killers continue killing? In other words, irrespective of the form it takes, isn't there a need to have 'a rule book'?

At the risk of having you find me too literal, when I said dance, I meant physical dancing e.g. to music, perhaps on a dance floor somewhere. I picked this activity deliberately. We humans have been dancing since the year dot. One may dance on one's own - and that can be very healthy. It is perhaps more commonly done with others. All this writing about individualism... seems here is a good place to write about something like dancing.

Dancing... it is widely associated with endorphins, having a good time, being romantic, self-expression, enjoyment. Not only has existed since we humans have existed, it has been cross cultural. The Germans do not own it, any more than the Brazilians, the Nigerians, the Russians, the Indonesians or the New Zealanders do. Indeed, dancing is one way each of these cultures can overcome barriers and get along, even enjoy one other's company. Do so in a way that would not be possible if they were dancing on their own - but that is good too.

I suppose, yes, one can always look to the nasty possibilities in life. That option will always be there. By the same token, one can look to the beauty which exists in being alive. As I wrote in the part you quoted, the option of trusting others, even the world at large, also exists.

If I take a step back, being trusting is... well... it is a necessity. More so than being suspicious. Obviously, in particular moments in life, you do need to be cautious - even suspicious. If one is to have a basic rule though, well, it is more practical to be trusting than it is to be suspicious. What is one going to do? Be perpetually suspicious? It would get to the point where you cannot even move.

On the large scale, a world in which trust is the norm leads to the dismantling of militaries (which have only existed for <1% of human history). It also diminishes the need to have a government - or even a parliament, let alone political leaders. That is a long way off but the point remains: a trusting world is a healthier place to live than a world in which suspicion is the norm.