PDA

View Full Version : The Fountainhead - Howard Roark Speech (Ayn Rand)



vasa1
July 28th, 2014, 07:50 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRXcaWVr_uI

mooreted
July 30th, 2014, 12:37 AM
I don't know how you could ever discuss Ayn Rand without turning it into a political firestorm. All I can say about Ayn Rand is that I don't think humans need any particular lessons in being selfish, self-centered beings. I think they do that all by themselves quite naturally.

Ironic that it is brought up on a forum that supports a philosophy of giving away one's work to the masses for free and believes that information wants to be free.

:popcorn:

QIII
July 30th, 2014, 12:58 AM
So long as this remains a discussion about a significant literary work and does not stray into a flame war about Rand's views with regard to individualism versus collectivism or how any particular political entity behaves in relation to those things, I won't put a stop to it. Individualism and collectivism are appropriate matters of civil dicussion related to open source software.

However is this becomes a flame war, devolves into bashing any particular companies or a discussion about politics, rest assured it will be closed.

vasa1
July 30th, 2014, 07:46 AM
...
Ironic that it is brought up on a forum that supports a philosophy of giving away one's work to the masses for free and believes that information wants to be free.
...
If you notice several people who can't code or help are quite vitriolic in their criticism of things even when provided to them free. That speech brought such people to mind.

I don't mind this thread being closed even before any problems arise.

mooreted
July 30th, 2014, 02:29 PM
That I can agree with. It amazes me that people get hopping mad about something they have been given for free. Fortunately, they are a small minority of people I just ignore.

ian-weisser
July 30th, 2014, 06:40 PM
Ah, everyone hates the Creator, even while benefiting from the creation. And the Creator is shackled by social constraints imposed by the Parasites.

It's an appealing concept to certain personality types.
It's an adolescent misrepresentation of how society works.
The Fountainhead is a fun fantasy. Like Lord Of The Rings. Or a Marx Brothers movie.

Benjamin Franklin, for example, was a very popular Creator in his time. So were Robert Oppenheimer and Steve Jobs.

QIII
July 30th, 2014, 06:58 PM
None of whom, unsupported by the societies in which they lived, the accomplishments of predecessors or the labor of others could have accomplished anything.

Nobody does anything that they can truly take full credit for.

To be successful, the Roman needs Rome. Otherwise he can be, at best, a miserable soul clad in animal skins and hoping a hare entangles itself in the snare.

Creators should be more humble -- others make the spears with which they make the kill.

This is the critical failing of Ayn Rand's philosophy. She lived in a world where the support structures existed, but being blinded by taking those structures for granted, could not see that the Creators stood on them. She did not see that the individual is supported by the collective.

Edit: To put this in perspective, other writers of her time did not see that the collective benefits from the Creators when all things are in balance. When the hunter shares his bounty with those who made the spear there is balance. Both hunter and spearmaker deserve due credit. And I see no problem with the hunter taking a portion commensurate with the risk he takes so long as it does not create unfair hardship for the spearmaker.

There is room in this world for both hunters and spearmakers. I disagree with those who think not.

SurfaceUnits
July 30th, 2014, 07:01 PM
That I can agree with. It amazes me that people get hopping mad about something they have been given for free. Fortunately, they are a small minority of people I just ignore.

That's is what happened to Remastersys, other peoples' children

monkeybrain20122
July 30th, 2014, 08:32 PM
So long as this remains a discussion about a significant literary work ...

Is any of her work significant?:shock:

mooreted
July 30th, 2014, 11:44 PM
Is any of her work significant?:shock:

No, not it's not. I always saw her as an angry, selfish and not very intelligent woman. Who do you suppose gathered those pearls she wears? Who built the house she lives in, the television camera she likes to be in front of, telephones and the clothes she wears? Besides which, what did she ever create but a not very interesting set of books and a couple of bad movies based on the books?

One might be thinking, "But I spent months writing this program, it is mine!" However, who developed the C++ program language you used to build it? Who wrote the compiler? Who came up with the machine language instructions the programming language uses to communicate with the hardware? Who invented Boolean algebra that makes computers possible? And on, and on.

No man, or woman, is an island. You don't create in a vacuum.

ian-weisser
July 31st, 2014, 12:09 AM
Is any of her work significant?

I think we're all mature enough here to recognize that stuff we don't agree with can also be significant.

We are, after all, discussing it over 50 years later.

QIII
July 31st, 2014, 12:22 AM
There is no good to be served by attacking Rand personally. She's been dead for 30 some odd years.

Her philosophy does bear discussion, however. In the American psyche and popular culture, her philosphy (with which I strongly disagree) and the philosophies of those whose opinions run counter to hers (with some of which I also strongly disagree) are actually gemane to a discussion about open source versus proprietary software.

Is her work significant? It still holds sway over a large segment of Americans and is still studied in course after course in US Universities.

RichardET
July 31st, 2014, 02:51 AM
I don't see why Rand should be discussed here. What does it have to do with 2014, technology, Ubuntu, computers, programming, or other *more interesting* topics?

QIII
July 31st, 2014, 03:12 AM
Well, because it's the Cafe, for one.

For another, Rand's influence on the psyche of the country that eight out of ten of the largest proprietary software companies in the world call home is a valid point of dialog.

mooreted
July 31st, 2014, 03:57 AM
Microsoft = Objectivism
Linux = Altruism

?

QIII
July 31st, 2014, 04:01 AM
Hmmm...

Rand's Objectivism isn't necessarily the way I'd go. That was just one of her ideas.

More along the lines of her views on the virtue and primacy of individualism and profit.

monkeybrain20122
July 31st, 2014, 08:52 PM
There is no good to be served by attacking Rand personally. She's been dead for 30 some odd years.

Her philosophy does bear discussion, however. In the American psyche and popular culture, her philosphy (with which I strongly disagree) and the philosophies of those whose opinions run counter to hers (with some of which I also strongly disagree) are actually gemane to a discussion about open source versus proprietary software.

Is her work significant? It still holds sway over a large segment of Americans and is still studied in course after course in US Universities.

Maybe only in the U.S., elsewhere Rand is considered a horrible writer with an equally horrible (and amateurish) philosophy who basically built a small cult of selfishness around herself, but then U.S style Libertarianism doesn't have a market in the rest of the industrial world either (ok, maybe some pockets in Western Canada where the Social Credit Party has a history)

Paulgirardin
August 1st, 2014, 10:59 PM
Ayn Rand School for Tots

ian-weisser
August 1st, 2014, 11:51 PM
Ayn Rand School for Tots

Well, to be fair, Maggie and her fellow conspirators did creatively grow, learn to cooperate, and excel at problem-solving under their neglect and abuse.

eriktheblu
August 3rd, 2014, 05:00 PM
Objectivist philosophy is widely misunderstood, and this thread is quite evident of that misconception.

The open source model is completely consistent with objectivism. I would argue that Linux and open source in general are actually more in line with Rand's philosophy than players like MS and Apple since there are far fewer examples of state intervention.

mooreted
August 4th, 2014, 02:09 AM
I don't know enough to debate the issue. It just seems to me that since Australopithecus Afarensis started forming groups to lure game into a trap we have formed tribes, villages, towns, cities and countries. It is our nature to work together for a common goal. I don't think we would have survived this long without community and cooperation.