I read The Fountainhead over 30 years ago.  As a young guy toting around a skull full of mush, I was pretty impressed with Rand.

Now that I'm older, I'm not as smitten with some aspects of her thinking.

Last night the movie adaptation was on and I watched it, never having the opportunity to see it before.

Some points:

- The idea that charitable work, working for free for the benefit of someone else, is slavery is balderdash.  If you are forced to work for someone else for free, I agree.   However, charitable work is a gift to the recipient.

- Rand rationalized too much in the concept of Rourke's monologue to the jury.  Howard Rourke destroyed private property belonging to other people.  I would have convicted him.

I have other thoughts, but I have to go to work now...

I think the movie was just awful, I don't really think it's worth having a philosophic debate based on it, as opposed to the book.

I didn't even know they made a movie.  The Foutainhead is my favorite Rand book (yes even over AS).  Principles, you either have them or you don't.

This.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

I got into it about 30 minutes into it.... didn't know they made a movie but wanted to see it all so i added it to my netflix.  fountainhead is a fantastic book.

Firm principles to guide your life are essential.

What if one of mine is to occasionally give of myself for the benefit of someone in need.  Giving that "gift" does not make me a slave to the recipient.

It is my freedom to act according to my will that empowers me to do that.  No man compels charity from me.

What about the "charity" to those that live their entire life off the government teet (the taxpayers)? I think we are compelled.

The movie was on AMC last night. I liked it though I thought Gary Cooper was mis-cast and for the times (1949). Perhaps Henry Fonda (who was considered for the role) would have been a better choice as the trial speech was terrible as rendered by Cooper. Raymond Massey and Pat Neal saved it IMHO. I read the Fountainhead but to be honest I liked the movie better. Ayn Rand does tend to get long winded and off point in that particular book.

That is not charity by definition b/c it is not optional in my mind. We are compelled under penalty of law which I would agree is basically slavery. Brohawk's statement illustrates true charity to me. I will say this though the actual definition of charity doesn't say anything about it being personally motivated which is a bit sad. To me the essence of charity is it being a personal decision to help someone out with the full expectation of nothing in return.



 

Wut?

That isn't charity. I think you misunderstood his post.

Rape... either you like it or you don't.  I very nearly put the book down when I read that, but I pressed on... my mistake.

FWIW, I rank AS right up there in the top 5 books of all time.

It most certainly is. Regardless, one is always "compelled" when it comes to "charity" - whether by guilt, empathy, a sense of self-satisfaction or the point of a gun (as is the case for taxes that go to life long leeches).

Grammatically yes, semantically no.

There is a difference in something that internally compels you, faith, love of your fellow man, guilt and being compelled by an external force like a gun toting JBT. Surely the difference is obvious.

Always fun in a Fountainhead/AS thread.