The Fountainhead (Ayn Rand) - Thug Notes Summary & Analysis 

SA-X Artfully Dodging the #metoo movement lol

Jesus Herrera Comedy shut the fuck up

@@emmathestonedspider8676 REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

@@balloonfiesta15 Don't you mean the reeeeeeetort?

@@balloonfiesta15 REEEEEEE

Agreed. So many books. Like The Hellbound Heart, Doomsday Clock, The Black Phone, etc...

+Euler Characteristic _"I'm talkin about Laffer curves and QE shit my dude...rational actors shit, you fuck with that?"_

+K a p p a 7 7 7 like saying there were virgin trollop it was.

yessss please

yaaaas

+zev piro Shut up Morty.

+dinosavros black Oh my god, please please please! It's my favorite work from my favorite philosopher.

baartenkaas Dude, who the fuck are you?

I feel like a dummy for just realizing that’s the brilliance of this channel hahaha

When you really break it down, Ayn Rand wrote a self-insert, angsty, teenage fan-fiction

+WhiteTuxMafiaAndFilms I'd say that's not giving her enough credit and/or giving FanFic writers too much credit, but she definitely had an issue with Mary Sue-ing her characters in a way. It's not that her books aren't well written though, it's just her characters that hold the books back, and arguably her philosophy depending on how you feel about it. I would argue she could write though, she just wasn't amazing at having more complexity in her characters.

+CTCNathan The point was to use her characters to represent what she saw as very specific ideals and philosophies. So yes, the ones she considered the epitome of good are good and infallible, while those she considered are evil and irredeemable. It's highly stylized and she was a follower of the romanticist school of fiction, where characters were more representative of an idea, rather than an attempt at depicting a realistic person. While I personally prefer realism mixed with romanticism, I still think Rand did a good job, since the characters were engaging, at least to me.

+CTCNathan I mean it's hard to argue that she could physically write a book...but that is where it ends

WhiteTuxMafiaAndFilms I think she was a fine writer and not many average writers could write as much per book as she did, but had a lot of obvious problems that stops her at a certain point. You don't see many fanfics that are 500+ pages and using decently sized words, as a dumbed down example. I'm not really a huge fan, I'm just saying she had her talents as a writer as well as her points where she was bad. What she wrote was better than 50 Shades of Grey, for example!

YES

+shapaza There's nothing to analyze in that story. It's pretty simple.

there is much to analyze

I love that Priest record, 🤘🏻

+shapaza Kinda scary -- bad enough to have read it....

+James Estrada I'm a fan of Rand and even her ideas, but I have to agree. Taken to an idealistic extreme, they ignore reality and simply wouldn't work across the whole of society. It's much like in Atlas Shrugged where she did a great job of showing what a disaster an authoritarian Socialist Utopia would be like - but then she sets up her own Objectivisit Utopia in Colorado.

The book says that. I can testify.

I would probably recommend just not reading if my past experiences are anything to go by!

+Inkswitch the Unicorn ''Anarcho''-Capitalists just like 'Do you even Bitcoin bro?' lol

+BUBBLEGUM GUN seriously lol >_ let's destroy hierarchies but then we have to establish one for the people_ > pretending this isn't what modern society is built on > _hierarchy for the people_ ishygddt

Inkswitch nah fam. just a bunch of us homies liking thug notes and how it helps us pass classes

Mace yes, it is such a horrible thing to try to take down an establishment to form a new one. What good ever came from that?

Well said!

Here, here!

Amen.

Yeah, I think pity wasn't equated with sympathy here. I think what Roarke (Rand) didn't like about pity was that to pity someone also meant to look down on someone. You can't pity your equal so much as you can pity someone who has fallen so low in stature that you can't help but pity them. Rand didn't like that pitying people implied that they no longer had any dignity left.

Pity is still virtuous though, even as the insulting and undignified version of sympathy. As long as it's implied that by seeing someone's wretchedness you are compelled to soothe it, it's therefore implied that kindness does not need to be earned. The objectivist idea of merit before all is super anti-social.

Would you kindly?

Andrew Ryan is more or less an anagram of Ayn Rand.

congrats, you saw tho obvious

Andrew Ryan We R Ayn Rand.

Brigid Tenenbaum -- Alisa Rosenbaum.

Kinda unrelated, but keeping it real at 4:38 reminds me of Dave Chappelle's "When keeping it real goes wrong."

+EyeLean5280 It's not about him being a genius, it's about him sticking to himself. He could have shitty designs and still be admirable to Rand for his convictions. But yes, he is a genius, because Rand wrote him so.

+Steven Wang I suppose to her subjective standards that's well enough, but anyone can have convictions and stand to them. There's nothing special in refusing to adapt: modifications to paradigms necessary to move forward are infinitely rarer; why stubbornness and ultra-conservative (in the non-political sense) mindsets would be prized over being able to admit fault and progress when the stubborn refusal to do so is the default nature of humans when confronted is, to me, intellectually lazy. Additionally not bending to a change in climate is the furthest thing from objectivism: being able to modify standing models is exactly why science *is* objective, it's not attached to some preconceived truth and too stubborn to alter in light of new information, the way a Randian hero like Rourke very much is. In evolution it's not the one who's most resistant to change that thrives, it's the one able to change in order to be most suited to the environment. Refusal to modify for anything is, objectively, intensely stupid. Clinging to dumb convictions is even more so. I only bring up physical sciences because Darwinian evolution is the go-to explanation for most as to why morally bankrupt behavior is acceptable under Objectivism -- doing so as a demonstration of how you can't have it both ways, that one can't use the principles of a science to suit one's needs when convenient, then disregard them when the mood strikes just because one likes the idea of thickheaded dipshits standing firm in moronic ideals out of this romantic idea that sticking to your convictions should stand above all.

Riley Vandewater In the novel, it's the others who are unwilling to adapt. e.g. the argument with the Dean early on: the Dean (and others) are so focused on the idea that others had better ideas than them, so bent on the act of copying, that they failed to adapt to changing times. Roark argues in this way: "The famous flutings on the famous columns--what are they there for? To hide the joints in wood--when columns were made of wood, only these aren't, they're marble. The triglyphs, what are they? Wood. Wooden beams, the way they had to be laid when people began to build wooden shacks. Your Greeks took marble and they made copies of their wooden structures out of it, because others had done it that way. Then your masters of the Renaissance came along and made copies in plaster of copies in marble of copies in wood. Now here we are, making copies in steel and concrete of copies in plaster of copies in marble of copies in wood. Why?"

+Riley Vandewater - Agreed with basically everything you said EXCEPT the idea that you are criticizing Ayn Rand. You might be responding only to +Steven Wang's description, but the REASON that Roark sticks to his convictions is that he loves what he does - he approaches it as an art. So, he isn't clinging to dumb convictions, his understanding is deep, and other people's are shallow. Because he loves his art, he is open to other people's ideas, but he only incorporates ideas that are DEEPER and more profound than his. He learns from Henry Cameron, because Henry is profound. He ignores Ellsworth Toohey because Ellsworth is a hack. So, again, you are correct - you just aren't critiquing Ayn Rand.

AynRandHero That's fair; I suppose I really wasn't critiquing her, or her work, so much as the ideology that informed her work. An ideology that opens itself to such critique by encouraging stagnation for the sake of how it makes one feel -- a key reason why I find its name so contradictory. To critique her work, though, I'm not all too fond of characters who remain largely static and still come out on top. Especially when, as the main character, the arc is yours for the taking. While for Rourke his firmness is driven by his love for his way of creating his art above all else, and that is absolutely commendable even had he remained a failed artist, this is simply one facet of such immobility. Developing as a character and going through an arc rather than starting out as the best but misunderstood and ending up still the best just doesn't make for interesting or compelling drama. For me, from a narrative angle, it makes the story and character read as stale. That firmness stands at the core premise of her work here, such that there's a passage dedicated to making the moral of this morality play explicit, and it's one that reads as firmly anti-development with an apparent disdain for so-called growth. For that fact the message it imparts comes off as impractical idealism that's equally misguided as similar blind ideals that objectivism would stand to oppose. To me that only compounded atop my flat narrative reading as a layer of non-functional hokum the story was designed explicitly to peddle, which admittedly may have colored my perception some, and to be fair it has been some time since my reading, so I may be working from a faulty interpretation. Perhaps I'll give it another read and approach it from a more objective angle. I'll let anyone reading decide whether that was a pun or not.

Omg yes I love that book

i know huh

+Jayadratha Bose *Thank you*. It was on the tip of my tongue.

Yes, thankyou. I had a much more wordy explaination, but yours is way better

Bullshit. What is the basis for your claim? Condescension is not mutually inclusive with pity. Never has been. Further, empathy and pity aren't mutually _exclusive_ either. A synonym for "pity" is "sympathy". If you *have* empathy when you see the starving child, you will then *feel* pity/sympathy.

Wrong, you can't feel empathy for things you haven't experienced. Empathy means you can relate to what the other is going through. I've never had to live in an unstable country where people starve, so I can't empathize. I can have sympathy and pity for them without any sense of superiority though. That just sounds like some BS used to justify your lack of sympathy and pity for others.

linguistically Zedek, your claim is correct regarding dictionary definitions, and synonyms. However, in context Rand makes it clear that pity, as she defines it, is not merely empathy but contempt for someone in a bad situation (typically of their own doing). In condemning pity in objectivism, it's this contemptuous empathy that she argues against. Jayadratha Bose is correct in his assertion within the context of this work. If you desire evidence for this, it can be found inside the book, or from reading some of her other works. Regardless of you opinion of her or her views, I recommend reading some, if only for your own edification with regards to this topic. It never hurts to have more ammunition, whichever side of the proverbial fence you fall on.

I'm so glad you get this. Thank you

Their motivations at first are actually quite similar. They both want to dominate Howard: Dominique because she’s been surrounded by incompetent men all her life; the thought of not being able to dominate a man, a man with the highest standard of ability and passion no less, infuriates her. She says multiple times in part 2 that all she wants to do is dominate Howard. Ellsworth also wants to dominate Howard because he wants to extinguish the light of society potentiated by free thinking creators (fountainheads) and throw the world into darkness as a result. So they’re motivations are originally very similar, though the reasons for said motivations are in fact different

Don’t have to like someone to be they Homie. Hell your Homie can the one that shanks Yo’ Ass. A Homie or “Home Boi”, just gotta have had shared some kinda experience with you. Your Hood, your Junior High, local Boys or Girls Club. Or in my case my Bois I went to medical school with or my Residency in Internal Medicine. Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Class of 1984!

yeah she's probably the most largely misunderstood writer in modern literature. She was very reasonable beyond politics. I studied her stuff for a while. A good number of gems 👌

Oh yeah. One need not look further than the comments on this video to see the typical misunderstandings and misrepresentations about her ideas, not to mention the ones I mention from the end of this video. And I adore her entire corpus, not just her political thought too.

+Bob the Monitor That would be awesome. Could do a whole series including the Enuma Elish, and their relationship with Genesis.

GIRUGAMESH

ask and thou shalt receive

They've done it now.

Sorry, but you missed the whole point of the book.

@@stevepayne3920 , more like that antithesis of the main point of the book

@@nazmul_khan_ Yes. That’s the point I was making. It is the antithesis.

They are weak virtues. Shallow. I always say this to people who think selfishness is bad. If people agree that people should have value, then why shouldn’t I treat myself as something valued? If you see the people you’re helping in need of generosity and compassion, why not do it to yourself? I’m still a person after all. In other words, treat yourself as though you are someone responsible for helping. If people did this, compassion would be self sufficient rather than relied upon. Because if you were in a burning building your values of compassion and generosity would be thrown out the window. Don’t fool yourself.

@@JacketsOnFire I mean, not really? Some maybe but other people have gone in to help people, even animals.

There's a bit in Atlas Shrugged where one of the heroes helps out a homeless man. You just made that part make sense. Thanks.

+Thomas Wright No.

+Thomas Wright - To judge a man as a "good man" is a global judgement. There are many aspects of the person's character to take into account. One is that you are good at what you do. If Roark built shitty designs, that would be a serious strike against him. A second is that you live with Integrity to your highest values. If Roark had clear and rational reasons to create the buildings as he did, that would be a major point in his favor. And Buffoon1980 has a more succinct answer. :-)

+Lego Insomniac that's the ONLY good thing that Rand's insanity produces.

I'm enjoying reading it just now, disagreeing with most of it, but it's a change from what I'm used to

haha yes

+Lego Insomniac We would have Bioshock, only that it would not be set in the Art Deco style world. In the early stages of development the game was meant to take place in an abandoned soviet bunker/research facility.

+Lego Insomniac I mean, that is kinda like saying without Hitler we wouldn't have Wolfenstien, therefore Hitler is difficult to hate.

+mysterywhiteboy72 What gave you that conclusion? Most objectivist's are happy, functional people.

YESS!!!

Yes.

I made a video about Fear & Loathing for 4th of July. I examined the theme of the American Dream.

Why do u hate her

@@qeoo6578 Because she pushed the idea that unfettered self-interest is good and altruism is destructive. That's sociopathic.

@@StellaWaldvogel living for yourself is moral. You only have 1 life & you need to maximize it. You need to pursue your dreams

@@qeoo6578 When talking about Rand, "living for yourself" and "pursue your dreams" are euphemisms for a failed, hate-driven philosophy that renders its adherents incapable of functioning as contributing members of society, and unfit to spend time in the presence of other people.

@@StellaWaldvogel wrong. She never said for people to disregard other humans. She believed in trading with other people & she valued all human life. Do you prefer people to live for others?

+darnact that shit is impossible analyse XD At least not in a 10 minute video lol

+Eddie Marz Then it is not compassion.

+mastertheillusion Yeah, it's pity.

+Eddie Marz That's more nuance than what's actually in the book, though. There's no caveat to Rand's hatred for compassion, it was all black and white from her point of view.

+Eddie Marz Respect is earned, not just given. I think nowadays people use 'respect' instead of common courtesy. When I see a homeless man on the street I can't exactly respect them because I don't know them. But can't disrespect them either. But still will give them change, because, well. Why not? Perhaps I can respect the fact that they're not too proud to ask for help. But at the time I won't think that. Maybe it's condescending because I am feeling sorry or pitying them, but if it helps them, even a little. Doesn't the ends justifies the reason?

Ben Agar one thing I've learned is the ends never justify the means

Yes - HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME!

+sinecurve9999 Literally anything from Heinlein.

Cyberman King Literally!!

TANSTAAFL!!!

+Dave Holden unless u are in the economic 1st percentile or a multinational corporation based in Ireland. the free buffet is off-shore tax shelters

+DV “Eppish” Epps You apparently dont know how taxes work.

many people failed to see Raynd's subtle potrayal of him

Gotta shit on Rand a little bit for the weak leftist types.

Thanks for that

He's spot on. Your mistake is that you equate (for no reason) respect with helping people. This is a false equivalency, particularly so with Rand. Rand believed that any action of 'helping' a person is an action of trying to help yourself. Nothing else. She did not believe you should actually help or consider others.

@@cemarz this is a legitimate question and not meant to troll. But if that's the case then why would Roark help Keating so much throughout the novel?

Dima Conn love that book!!

+wanderingdude777 My favorite aspect of Roarke is that he completely defies Objectivism's love affair with Anarcho Capitalism. He is a superman in that he refuses to change hs product in such a way as he can SELL it. He literally defies the market at every turn because he refuses to adapt. Roarke is a panda, dying from overspecialization. Why did she write him this way and exemplify him as a hero? Because she is an idiot whose entire philosophy is warmed-over Nietzsche that misses the point.

+Fox Winter My man!

+Fox Winter High five bro, leftist salute!

Fox Winter huh, never thought about it like that, good one

That bit was a little out of context. She was already interested in Roark and brought that forward (if I remember right).