The most impressive thing to me about Roark is that he seems to have known from the beginning the nature of the oppositions he would face. Most of us go into the world with this Sesame Street optimism that the world is a friendly place and that the majority out there won’t be working to destroy you one way or another, whether they have “good intentions” or not. That knowledge is so powerful. It enables you to actually prepare for everything you’ll face and not get surprised and blindsided by these “people”.
Very true, he is brought up as an objectivist from the very beginning. I strongly consider teaching my future children (if I end up have any) the objective reality rather than Santa Clause and other mysticism, that way objective reality will feel very natural to them. Some might say it's ruining their childhood, I think it's giving them truth and actually preparing them for life.
I look forward to having people like Roark in my life so I can enjoy watching their work. I would like to exchange all my effort for what they have to offer me.😏
Thank you for such a great video with a deep explanation of Roark's principles. I have one question about Rand's philosophy. She says that a man should be guided by reason. How to define a good reason? How to reason from something? Should a reason be proven by the experience or how else?
Good question, try reading Atlas, and then INTRODUCTION TO OBJECTIVIST EPISTEMOLOGY. Both from Rand. Also try the book objectivism: the philosophy of ayn rand, great to really understand her.
Try looking at it, that you should not have major life decisions be guided primarily by emotions. Most people allow ALL their decisions to be guided by emotion. Especially nowadays that men have become feminized and are encouraged to behave emotionally. Don’t allow yourself to get sidetracked by weird subcultures. Just stay on a straight path.
CONTRADICTIONS THAT I FIND IN THE PLOT OF "THE FOUNTAINHEAD" Preamble: The interest that this book generated at the time was because it was by Ayn Rand, which leads me to assume that her characters were applying the philosophy that she preached. 1. “Heroes” committing actions far from being heroic: The character of Peter Keating is identified in the book as an "antihero", weak, false, dependent, hypocritical etc. Howard Roarke was quite the opposite, an upright guy, with great strength, creativity, individual values etc. But from the beginning these two supposedly opposite characters are partners in a deception that gives rise to the entire plot. The weaknesses of the characters in Rand's novels suffer from immense egos and a false superiority that they fail to truly demonstrate in their part of the plot. Roarke had a dream of being able to build his ideal building but had neither the means to do so nor the relationships that would allow him to achieve it. The idea of allowing someone else to present his design as his own must have been detestable to him, but the eagerness to see it made was stronger than the prudence of biding his time to do it on his own. Perhaps it was due to a lack of confidence in his abilities that he preferred to negotiate with Keating in this sterile and amoral way. The moment he let Keating present it as his own design it became what he was criticizing Keating for, and the agreement they made about not being able to modify the design in the construction was not real because it was not Keating's prerogative to make that decision. Roarke seemed to feel cheated, but it was obvious that he knew from the beginning that Keating couldn't assure him of anything. They were also both clear that they were deceiving the architectural firm first because the design was not by Keating, and then because if the firm had known that a madman could dynamite the building if they did it as their needs demanded, they would surely not have used the design. but any other. Another important factor is that Keating assumed responsibility for Roarke's design, but after the changes that the architectural firm made it was no longer exactly the same design but a very similar variation on which Roarke could no longer demand anything. Really analyzing the participation of each one in ensuring that the building existed, it must be made clear that it was constituted by the design, the materials with which it was built, the labor necessary to build it, the place where it was built, and the economic investment that allowed integrating all to its conclusion. Obviously Roarke didn't have all this because otherwise he would have made his building without having anything to do with Keating or the architectural firm. Since he did not have all those things, he could not decide what would happen to the building as a whole but only with the design plans that had been his contribution.
Well every collaboration that he had with Keating is portrayed as a huge mistake in the book and really the main thing that nearly causes him to downfall.
@@alcoyot it causes his moral downfall. They both participated on a fraud against the architectural firm. He let someone else to sign his own design and then pretended that he was mád because they change it. He lost any relation to it by letting Keating sing it as his. The use of violence on that básis is as irrational as what BLM or Antifa protests.
Every example you made is not a contradiction but perfectly coherent with Roarkes character. It may not be your personal idea of moral yet it is rational regarding the framework Rand has given his principles. The highest value for Roarke is architecture, to make buildings as they should be. He did not condemn the state-of-the-art designs but only wanted his own personal creations to also have a place in the world. However he condemned the obsession of the human greed for power, money and prestige as means for personal validation and thus didn't wanted buildings originated as effect of those to be declared "true art". He enhanced Keatings drafts in order to make better versions of contemporary buildings, as Keating would have made them worse. He simply could not bear the thought of having the chance to become buildings that get build anyway worse than they could be. (again Architecture is his god-value). The last design however was different: Roarke gave Keating the chance to become an "hero" himself as he noticed that Keating was so close to understanding him. Only as he promised Keating all material possessions, prestige, everything he had ever wanted for it but Keating still said "Roarke, you will have designed it, so you still get everything" only then did Roarke agree. He also told him that this was a chance he would gave Keating. Keating also realised that Roarkes highest value also was his highest value but he had such a history of betraying what he really that Roarke told him he would have to bring justice, would Peter betray them again. He did. Roarke brought justice. He dynamited the building not because he "felt betrayed" personally, but because he knew that he would have to fight for the higher principle of his values just as every other person in history that lead to true change. He blew it up so that he would have the trial. It got mentioned several times that he knew what would follow, he didn't flee. He wanted to make it public to contribute the most he could to his cause and he did. His action should show that we need a world in which a Galileo Galilei would rather die than to tell them the earth was flat even if everyone would be against him, even if it gave him neither money, nor prestige, nor love, as he explained in the trial. Sure one can condemn several actions taken by "heroic characters" such as violence. In the real world, I certainly do. However one does not have to justify every action as if taken in reality. Rand was a storyteller that tried to elicit emotions that make the reader understand the meaning not only rationally but make them internalise it in depth. Using a emotionally intense approach it would be obvious to get intense reactions in both directions. Still I believe there is value for every living human in her books though maybe some cannot extract it as their vision blurs because of what they think they have to condemn. Maybe she could have written it more digestible for some, but maybe then it would be less valuable to the rest.
@@blurrybeats978 I agree, my examples are coherent with Roarke's lack of character. There is an objective morality that has nothing to do with my point of view. They were not Keating's drafts but a full Roarke's design, its dishonest from you to try to change that in order to march your false narrative. The first philosophical contradiction of your comment is that Rand being an atheist cannot give any of her characters god given views. It would have been going against her own philosophycal base. Arquitecture's most important value is autenticity, but to give it a "god-given" value diminishes because it is false. Since gods do not exists then everything "god-given" is a fantasy. The heroic category is also false and out of value becase heroes do not exist. There are valuable people that live on valuable standars, but they are autentic, not a non existent ideal like heroes. Roarke lost any ties with the desing from the moment that he let Keating to present it as his and sign it. He did not get any kind of betrayal, the only betrayal was of Roarke on his own values. By letting Keating sign his creation he betrayed himself. Roarke's use of violence on a building that belong to someone else, that was made in a very similar way as Keating's signed design was an act of terrorism. Galileo would have never let anyone else presented his discoveries as his, stop comparing Roarke with him because Roarke lost all value and self respect by making a jinxed deal with Keating and show the world that they were exactly the same kind of people. And you are proving to be exacltly like them by trying to change the facts on the book to match your false justification of a chain of vile acts.
She was nutty. But a true genius as a writer. All great artists are mentally damaged “off” in some way. You can gain a lot from her work, without feeling the need to buy into everything
This is the only book that inspires me.
The most impressive thing to me about Roark is that he seems to have known from the beginning the nature of the oppositions he would face.
Most of us go into the world with this Sesame Street optimism that the world is a friendly place and that the majority out there won’t be working to destroy you one way or another, whether they have “good intentions” or not.
That knowledge is so powerful. It enables you to actually prepare for everything you’ll face and not get surprised and blindsided by these “people”.
Very true, he is brought up as an objectivist from the very beginning. I strongly consider teaching my future children (if I end up have any) the objective reality rather than Santa Clause and other mysticism, that way objective reality will feel very natural to them. Some might say it's ruining their childhood, I think it's giving them truth and actually preparing them for life.
Howard Roark is the man who has lived immortality in the real sense.
I look forward to having people like Roark in my life so I can enjoy watching their work. I would like to exchange all my effort for what they have to offer me.😏
17:35, Roark wasnt waiting for them to understand him. He was waiting for the right people to appear. People like him, with his principles.
Great point. Very important difference
Thank you for such a great video with a deep explanation of Roark's principles.
I have one question about Rand's philosophy. She says that a man should be guided by reason. How to define a good reason? How to reason from something? Should a reason be proven by the experience or how else?
Eugene Levy the reason is what makes you happy. Truly happy, proud.
Good question, try reading Atlas, and then INTRODUCTION TO OBJECTIVIST EPISTEMOLOGY. Both from Rand. Also try the book objectivism: the philosophy of ayn rand, great to really understand her.
Try looking at it, that you should not have major life decisions be guided primarily by emotions. Most people allow ALL their decisions to be guided by emotion. Especially nowadays that men have become feminized and are encouraged to behave emotionally.
Don’t allow yourself to get sidetracked by weird subcultures. Just stay on a straight path.
Look into the Trivium - grammar, logic and rhetoric. Learn to recognise logical fallacies in yourself and others.
Are these pictures taken from a film?
Howard roark sir amazing💕😍 yaar aap you 👉best me too. Like you. Last din tak life ki
6:56
CONTRADICTIONS THAT I FIND IN THE PLOT OF "THE FOUNTAINHEAD"
Preamble:
The interest that this book generated at the time was because it was by Ayn Rand, which leads me to assume that her characters were applying the philosophy that she preached.
1. “Heroes” committing actions far from being heroic:
The character of Peter Keating is identified in the book as an "antihero", weak, false, dependent, hypocritical etc. Howard Roarke was quite the opposite, an upright guy, with great strength, creativity, individual values etc. But from the beginning these two supposedly opposite characters are partners in a deception that gives rise to the entire plot.
The weaknesses of the characters in Rand's novels suffer from immense egos and a false superiority that they fail to truly demonstrate in their part of the plot.
Roarke had a dream of being able to build his ideal building but had neither the means to do so nor the relationships that would allow him to achieve it. The idea of allowing someone else to present his design as his own must have been detestable to him, but the eagerness to see it made was stronger than the prudence of biding his time to do it on his own. Perhaps it was due to a lack of confidence in his abilities that he preferred to negotiate with Keating in this sterile and amoral way. The moment he let Keating present it as his own design it became what he was criticizing Keating for, and the agreement they made about not being able to modify the design in the construction was not real because it was not Keating's prerogative to make that decision. Roarke seemed to feel cheated, but it was obvious that he knew from the beginning that Keating couldn't assure him of anything. They were also both clear that they were deceiving the architectural firm first because the design was not by Keating, and then because if the firm had known that a madman could dynamite the building if they did it as their needs demanded, they would surely not have used the design. but any other. Another important factor is that Keating assumed responsibility for Roarke's design, but after the changes that the architectural firm made it was no longer exactly the same design but a very similar variation on which Roarke could no longer demand anything.
Really analyzing the participation of each one in ensuring that the building existed, it must be made clear that it was constituted by the design, the materials with which it was built, the labor necessary to build it, the place where it was built, and the economic investment that allowed integrating all to its conclusion. Obviously Roarke didn't have all this because otherwise he would have made his building without having anything to do with Keating or the architectural firm. Since he did not have all those things, he could not decide what would happen to the building as a whole but only with the design plans that had been his contribution.
Well every collaboration that he had with Keating is portrayed as a huge mistake in the book and really the main thing that nearly causes him to downfall.
@@alcoyot it causes his moral downfall. They both participated on a fraud against the architectural firm. He let someone else to sign his own design and then pretended that he was mád because they change it. He lost any relation to it by letting Keating sing it as his. The use of violence on that básis is as irrational as what BLM or Antifa protests.
Every example you made is not a contradiction but perfectly coherent with Roarkes character. It may not be your personal idea of moral yet it is rational regarding the framework Rand has given his principles.
The highest value for Roarke is architecture, to make buildings as they should be. He did not condemn the state-of-the-art designs but only wanted his own personal creations to also have a place in the world. However he condemned the obsession of the human greed for power, money and prestige as means for personal validation and thus didn't wanted buildings originated as effect of those to be declared "true art".
He enhanced Keatings drafts in order to make better versions of contemporary buildings, as Keating would have made them worse. He simply could not bear the thought of having the chance to become buildings that get build anyway worse than they could be. (again Architecture is his god-value).
The last design however was different: Roarke gave Keating the chance to become an "hero" himself as he noticed that Keating was so close to understanding him. Only as he promised Keating all material possessions, prestige, everything he had ever wanted for it but Keating still said "Roarke, you will have designed it, so you still get everything" only then did Roarke agree. He also told him that this was a chance he would gave Keating. Keating also realised that Roarkes highest value also was his highest value but he had such a history of betraying what he really that Roarke told him he would have to bring justice, would Peter betray them again. He did. Roarke brought justice. He dynamited the building not because he "felt betrayed" personally, but because he knew that he would have to fight for the higher principle of his values just as every other person in history that lead to true change. He blew it up so that he would have the trial. It got mentioned several times that he knew what would follow, he didn't flee. He wanted to make it public to contribute the most he could to his cause and he did. His action should show that we need a world in which a Galileo Galilei would rather die than to tell them the earth was flat even if everyone would be against him, even if it gave him neither money, nor prestige, nor love, as he explained in the trial.
Sure one can condemn several actions taken by "heroic characters" such as violence. In the real world, I certainly do. However one does not have to justify every action as if taken in reality. Rand was a storyteller that tried to elicit emotions that make the reader understand the meaning not only rationally but make them internalise it in depth. Using a emotionally intense approach it would be obvious to get intense reactions in both directions. Still I believe there is value for every living human in her books though maybe some cannot extract it as their vision blurs because of what they think they have to condemn. Maybe she could have written it more digestible for some, but maybe then it would be less valuable to the rest.
@@blurrybeats978
I agree, my examples are coherent with Roarke's lack of character. There is an objective morality that has nothing to do with my point of view. They were not Keating's drafts but
a full Roarke's design, its dishonest from you to try to change that in order to march your false narrative. The first philosophical contradiction of your comment is that Rand being an atheist cannot give any of her characters god given views. It would have been going against her own philosophycal base. Arquitecture's most important value is autenticity, but to give it a "god-given" value diminishes because it is false. Since gods do not exists then everything "god-given" is a fantasy. The heroic category is also false and out of value becase heroes do not exist. There are valuable people that live on valuable standars, but they are autentic, not a non existent ideal like heroes. Roarke lost any ties with the desing from the moment that he let Keating to present it as his and sign it. He did not get any kind of betrayal, the only betrayal was of Roarke on his own values. By letting Keating sign his creation he betrayed himself. Roarke's use of violence on a building that belong to someone else, that was made in a very similar way as Keating's signed design was an act of terrorism. Galileo would have never let anyone else presented his discoveries as his, stop comparing Roarke with him because Roarke lost all value and self respect by making a jinxed deal with Keating and show the world that they were exactly the same kind of people. And you are proving to be exacltly like them by trying to change the facts on the book to match your false justification of a chain of vile acts.
Rand was a romantic damaged personality.
How? Can you explain...???
She was nutty.
But a true genius as a writer. All great artists are mentally damaged “off” in some way.
You can gain a lot from her work, without feeling the need to buy into everything