"El ego del hombre es el manantial del progreso humano"

Novela superlativa escrita hacia 1943 que solamente pudo haber sido concebida por una mente muy brillante y escrita por una pluma privilegiada, ambas se dan cita en la persona de Ayn Rand, nacida Alisa Zinóvievna Rosenbaum en San Petersburgo en 1905 y fallecida en Nueva York en 1982.

Obra de largo aliento que con una gran vitalidad nos conduce a través del mundo de la arquitectura en la ciudad de Nueva York de los años 20 y 30 del pasado siglo. Nos describe edificios, casas, planeación de espacios, rascacielos, diseños artísticos, planos e integridad artística que sirven como telón de fondo para narrarnos las andanzas y posturas vitales de sus extraordinarios personajes que, mención aparte, nos pueden causar admiración o aversión.
La disciplina de la arquitectura, elevada como una de las Bellas Artes, es el campo en donde batalla el egoísmo contra el altruismo; el individualismo, motivado por un desapego a las convenciones sociales, contra el colectivismo y contra la integración a una sociedad que no a todos complace.

La novela posee cierto contenido filosófico o ideológico y tal vez especulativo. La ideología aquí desplegada parece no gustar a muchos por su tendencia hacia el individualismo y hacia el egoísmo, pero me parece que no habla del egoísmo como usualmente se entiende. A pesar de moverse constantemente sobre su teoría filosófica del objetivismo, esta larga novela es ágil y no nos plantea muchas complicaciones, manteniendo el ritmo narrativo a través de todo lo largo y ancho de ella, para lo cual se vale de una trama estimulante, planteamientos y reflexiones sumamente interesantes, ricas descripciones, diálogos exuberantes y una buena ambientación de Nueva York. La creación de personajes merece una mención especial, me parecen muy bien estructurados y a la vez un tanto complejos debido a las posturas trascendentales que la autora les sabe infundir a cada uno de ellos.

El libro se divide en cuatro grandes capítulos, cada uno de ellos lleva el nombre de uno de los protagonistas principales. Estos personajes llevan sobre sus hombros una parte importante de la filosofía de la autora, pudiendo ser la tesis o la antítesis:
Peter Keating, brillante arquitecto quien se vale de su profesión para conseguir todo aquello que las aplastantes fuerzas de la sociedad ven como encomiable: dinero, admiración, poder, popularidad, fama, posición social. Conseguir la grandeza pero a ojos de los demás. En una palabra, vivir sin remilgos para lo que la sociedad nos ha impuesto a través de los años. Vivir a través de los demás y no para uno mismo.
Ellsworth Toohey, crítico de arquitectura y arte, escritor, orador, activista, intelectual influyente en los círculos culturales y sobre todo en el mundo de la arquitectura. Un personaje que apoya y cree con fervor en el colectivismo y por el contrario es un detractor del individualismo. Está a favor del acto de pensar juntos, actuar juntos, sentir juntos y luego servir juntos a la colectividad.
Gail Wynand, una rata de muelle en los inicios de su vida y que llega a ser un capitalista exitoso que llega a acumular un gran poder. Logra llegar a la cima de una de la sociedad fatua, fundada en valores frívolos.
Howard Roark, arquitecto visionario, un hombre íntegro; con él estamos frente a una especie de un superhombre entendido en los términos que anheló Friedrich Nietzsche. Ese ser idealista de gran fuerza e independencia, en cierto sentido diferente y superior al resto de los hombres. Un ser heroico “que se asume como destino” y quien es sometido a un juicio que puede interpretarse como un símil del juicio que la sociedad les tiene reservado a todos los hombres diferentes, a aquellos que se mueven fuera de la abrumadora corriente social, a los insumisos y pioneros. Este personaje representa las fuerzas del egoísmo y del individualismo antisocial.

También se presentan una gran cantidad de personajes adicionales, destacando una mujer llamada Dominique Francon que funciona como bisagra entre muchos de ellos, especialmente entre los principales y sobre los cuales ejerce su influencia.

Independientemente de las posturas ideológicas de la autora y de la forma en que se han utilizado para diversos fines políticos o ideológicos, la novela por sí misma es una gran obra tan sólo por su desarrollo narrativo, sus brillantes postulados, sus personajes, su inteligencia.

Cada personaje tiene su propia visión del mundo y su muy peculiar forma de abordarlo y de relacionarse con él. Esto es ejemplificado mediante diversas tesis e interrogantes como por ejemplo:

El egoísmo como una autoafirmación de nuestro yo más auténtico, dejando de lado las expectativas y los valores que la sociedad nos ha inoculado.

Muchas veces, por no decir siempre, el altruismo está movido por resortes como la propia satisfacción. El efectuar una donación nos hace sentir bien, alimenta nuestro ego. ¿Es más noble el acto de donar o bien buscar el respeto a nosotros mismos basado en estándares personales sobre nuestros propios logros?

¿Es más importante buscar la estima de los demás o nuestra propia autoestima?

El dar nos hace sentirnos bien, pero es más importante el sentido de logro. ¿Dar o lograr?

¿Nuestros mejores momentos tienen que ser compartidos con los demás o pueden ser sólo personales?

¿El auto sacrificio es la máxima virtud? ¿Puede un hombre sacrificar su integridad, su honor, su libertad, su ideal, la independencia de su pensamiento, sus convicciones? Es precisamente el yo lo que no puede sacrificarse.

Una novela redonda y provocadora que invita a una profunda reflexión sobre nuestro actuar ante la sociedad y ante nosotros mismos, en donde fluye como un indomable río subterráneo la idea de que el espíritu del hombre es su ego.

Whohooo! Ein irres Buch. Das nenne ich mal einen dynamischen, aufregenden Plot. Komplexe, ausgefeilte Charaktere. Irre gute, intensive Dialoge und Interaktionen.

Logisch ist das drüber. Da sind Ansprachen und Monologe drin, die einem die Ohren klingeln lassen.
Alles wurscht, da es konsequent und stringent gearbeitet ist. Die Figurenpsychologie wackelt an keiner Stelle. Das Ding treibt gnadenlos auf die Konsequenzen der Handlungen zu.
Ein radikaler Spaß!


Ich habe es als Hörbuch gehört. Werde es demnächst nochmal lesen und dann gibts ne gescheite Besprechung. Mal sehen ob die 5 Sterne sich halten können.

I have read Atlas Shrugged and now this one. I did not like this one and my opinion is similar to Atlas Shrugged. The book started out decent with a architect student being individualistic and wanting to do his own thing. The opener was good in my opinion, but then monotonous writing on top of a dull plot left me disappointed.

The book was dry, too long, and over-the-top in attempts to sell the 'objectivism' concept. I read Atlas Shrugged and did not like it either. This is my last Ayn Rand adventure. Over reviews spoke highly of it but I felt it missed that mark for me. Thanks!

I once broke up with someone because she was an ardent follower of Ayn Rand. it just started bothering me more and more, and I started seeing the taint of Objectivism in so many of her comments. mind you, this was in college when i was much more obnoxiously political.

after we broke up, she turned around and started dating my roommate... sweet revenge, and a fitting response from an Objectivist.

Looking at the aesthetic ideals in this book (steel! granite! muscular men!) and the concepts depicted as positive (heroism! strength!), I am pretty sure Leni Riefenstahl was the ghostwriter for this one - incidentally, finishing it was clearly a “triumph of the will” on my part. :-)

Nevertheless, I don’t regret reading it, as I was trying to grasp what it is that fascinates some currently important American politicians about Ayn Rand. Holy crap, the amount of BS you can justify by sticking to the logic of this book! People who hold a different opinion than you? Well, they`re all brain-washed communists, stick to what you believe to be true, never change your mind throughout the course of your whole life and just ignore everyone! Helping others? Only weak push-overs or evil manipulators do that, just despise those ignorant masses for their bad taste! Oh, and by the way: The stupid and narrow-minded are also physically ugly, so it`s easy to recognize them!

Whoever buys into this crudely assembled caricature of a philosophy called “Objectivism” is clearly not running the risk to be mistaken as a particularly sharp thinker (or as objective, for that matter). While Ayn Rand depicts some flaws, trials and tribulations that certainly do exist, her answers to those challenges are outright ridiculous. Just because you should take responsibility for your actions and use your own brain (who would disagree with that), you don`t have to give up on self-criticism, solidarity and empathy – on the contrary.

As some Ayn Rand-fans are currently trying to make authoritarianism and hatred great again, it remains fascinating, mysterious and downright scary how obviously flawed ideologies like Objectivism can affect international politics.

I recall that most people read Ayn Rand in high school, which is the ideal time to embrace protagonists who refuse to compromise their originality and are assaulted on all sides for their greatness. Having skipped several grades in public school I missed some of these formative books so I'm reading them as an adult. More than 50 years have passed in architecture, capitalism, and the glorification of the mediocre, since Rand wrote The Fountainhead, which is why its philosophies are more suited for the high school mind than the adult reader. Her characters aren't human, they are symbols to illustrate her early philosophy. Howard Roarke, her hero and übermensch, is a man who cannot exist in real life. He is perfect, and his enemies try and destroy him because he is perfect. What we know of 50 years of capitalism and architecture is that style means nothing, whether modern, classic, brutalist, original, or stolen. Buildings are erected by faceless corporations, or by eccentric wealthy. There is enough room and real estate for both the Keatings and the Roarkes, and the Ellsworth Twoheys of the world don't mean a thing. Sad, really, because Twohey is a villain truly worth hating - the blowhard intellectual ass who seeks to destroy originality by elevating the mediocre and placing the good of others above the good of self so he may rule the plebes. Rand's notion that altruism is basically evil communism (embodied in Twohey) is amusing, because her model of success relies on everyone being rich (or having rich benefactors). My goodness - if only everyone were rich we'd all be happy! It's no wonder than Alan Greenspan was all crushed out on the woman. I'll admit at times I wished that Twohey would meet a horrible end - to have his hands cut off, his tongue cut out, so he would be forced to witness Roarke's triumphs and be powerless to do anything but watch without comment. But Rand's novel isn't plotted that way - nothing really happens other than ideas battling one another. There are no consequences to anyone's actions. And it is for that reason that The Fountainhead reads more like a television show; characters that do not change, who occupy the same sets, encircling one another and talking about themselves. That's what makes it a mediocre novel - Rand's place in history is now better suited to television - and I'm talking Oxygen, Lifetime, or Hallmark channel.

2.5/5

Ayn Rand sako, kad jos tikslas Šaltinyje buvo pristatyti idealų žmogų. Tačiau tam reikia idealių sąlygų, idealiai sukuriamų, į vieną idealų katilą sumetant daug idealių aplinkybių. Ar iš to gaunasi idealus romanas? Vargu. Nors jame autorė švenčia individualizmą ir savarankiškumą, nors aukština žmones, kurie visomis aplinkybėmis plaukia prieš srovę, galiausiai lieki persisotinęs ir pavargęs, išsunktas idėjų gausos, pateiktos intelektualiai ir talentingai, bet visgi vietomis primenančios protingą filosofijos pirmakursį, žinantį keletą teorijų ir bandantį jas pritempti prie kiekvienos situacijos, kiekvieno žmogaus, kiekvieno gyvenimiškos patirties. O jei netinka, belieka tik viską pakeisti į idealią situaciją, idealų žmogų ir idealią patirtį. Bet ar tai tampa idealiu gyvenimo atspindžiu?

Knyga tokia stora, bet talpina savyje ne tiek daug, kaip būtų galima pagalvoti. Čia daug vidinės virtuvės – architektūros, žiniasklaidos, o svarbiausia – daug, kartais nepakeliamai daug kalbėjimosi apie darbą. Visur, visada, su visais. Vietomis Šaltinis ima priminti nejaukų kolegų teambuildingą bare: ėėė, chebra, bet davai nekalbam apie darbą, ką? Tačiau po trečios nejaukios pauzės paaiškėja, kad turint bendrą temą, iš jos reikia išsunkti kiekvieną lašą. Ir o dangau, kaip Rand sunkia. Iš dažnai per patogiai sukurtų veikėjų, o ir pačių skaitytojų, kurdama charakterius įtraukiančiai ir įdomiai, tačiau visgi realistiškai tik pagal savo pačios idealistinį suvokimą. O žvelgiant iš Žemės – vietomis tingiai, vietomis nejautriai net ir tuometiniame kontekste, o kartais realybės pervertimą naudojant kaip pateisinimą tam, kad kai kurie sprendimai įprastomis sąlygomis atrodytų nepateisinami ir sunaikinantys bet kokią galimą simpatiją ne tik veikėjams, bet ir tai, kuri jiems davė balsą. Ir balsas paskirstytas čia taip šiek tiek tingiai – keli vyriškiai ir viena per visų jų gyvenimus pereinanti moteris Dominika. Tikriausiai ypatinga ir išrinktoji, ar bent jau turėtų tokia atrodyti, bet iš tiesų veikiau plastilinas autorės rankose – perminkoma priklausomai nuo vyro, kuriam tame skyriuje yra įduodama į (ne)maloningas rankas, keičianti veidus ir balsus taip, kaip autorei ar vyrams būtų patogiau. O jos požiūris į gyvenimą, pradžioje galėjęs sužavėti nenuspėjamu išskirtinumu, visgi galiausiai pradeda erzinti, ypač suvokus, kad nenuspėjamumas – tik pretekstas Dominiką pritaikyti prie idealių aplinkybių tam, kad galėtų egzistuoti idealūs veikėjai. Nu, ta prasme, vyrai.

Tiesą sakant, bene vienintelės moters portretas puikiai atspindi ir mano santykį su Šaltiniu. Pradžioje susidomėjimas ir intriga, kurstoma Rand anarchijos ir naujovių vėjų, vėliau išgaruoja stebint pačios knygos išsigimimą – autorė tiek kartojasi, nors kalba apie naujoves, originalumą ir modernumą, tiek perminko tas pačias mintis, jas įduodama vis kitiems veikėjams, kad galiausiai tai, kas pradžioje džiugino, ima slėgti ir varginti, o nepakeliamas knygos nuspėjamumas nepalieka jokių prošvaisčių savęs motyvacijoje skaityti toliau. Ir nors turiu pripažinti, kad knyga vis pagaudavo mane iš naujo, tai tik todėl, kad sąmoningai bandžiau bent už kažko užkibti, kad kelionę atlaikyčiau iki pat galo. Atlaikiau. Bet kuo dažniau užsiraunu ant daugžodžiaujančių autorių, tuo labiau imu vertinti juos galinčius sutramdyti redaktorius.

The Fountainhead is a tale of both defeat and triumph. It is depressing and exalting, inviting and repugnant. And its philosophy, like all great lies, is more than three-quarters true.

In this lengthy novel, Ayn Rand presents her ideal man and her philosophy of objectivism. The philosophy rejects mercy, altruism, charity, sacrifice, and service. These proclaimed virtues are portrayed as either weaknesses or as tools of subjugation. Her philosophy is a sort of extreme capitalism applied to every aspect of life; as with Adam Smith’s invisible hand, if men pursue their own selfish interests, mankind will ultimately benefit. Altruism, Rand argues, forces men to keep others subservient, so that they may make themselves righteous; it has been the root of the greatest evils in the world (Communism, Nazism, etc.); but egoism has resulted in creations that have alleviated the sufferings of man for generations to come.

Her philosophy is most succinctly expressed by her architect hero Howard Roark, who says, “All that which proceeds form man’s independent ego is good. All that which proceeds from man’s dependence upon men is evil.” Rand's philosophy stands in stark contrast to the collectivism which was then sweeping the world in an ocean of blood. Collectivism "has reached,” says Roark, “a scale of horror without precedent. It has poisoned every mind. It has swallowed most of Europe. It is engulfing our country.”

Roark aruges that “only by living for himself” can man “achieve the things which are the glory of mankind” and that “no man can live for another . . . The man who attempts to live for others is a dependent. He is a parasite in motive and makes parasites of those he serves.” And yet Roark is himself the quintessential intellectual, who shares the same failing of the intellectuals who created Communism, Nazism, and the other “altruistic evils”; that is, he is capable of loving man in the abstract but incapable of loving him in the particular: “One can’t love man without hating most of the creatures who pretend to bear his name.”

The Fountainhead expresses an individualism that is uniquely American, and it is therefore surprising that The Fountainhead, as far as I know, has never been in the running for the title of “The Great American Novel.” Of course, although it emphasizes that individualism has made our nation great (and it has), it must of necessity ignore and dismisses another progressive force in our nation’s history: American Christianity.

So what about the story? Despite the copious philosophical dialogue, the story is not sacrificed to create an ethical treatise. The characters are fascinating, very well-developed, and the story is at times gripping. However, the relationship between our hero and heroine is never fully convincing to me, and I find it highly disturbing that Rand felt it necessary to make rape an essential and even positive element of their union. The story drew me in at first, and then began to lose me for several chapters, as Rand breaks one of the rules of good structure and does not begin developing a main character until over half way through the novel.

I give it such a high rating because I like novels that truly make me think and reconsider my assumptions, whether I maintain or reject them as a consquence. I am glad I did not read Rand when I was a teenager and not yet a Christian, as I'm afraid her Objectivism might have taken a cultish hold of me; she has a way of speaking to (and perhaps luring?) the independent-minded student who feels the pressure of intellectual conformity. I give it four stars also because I read it at a time when I found fiction difficult, and it brought back my love of reading.

It's uncomfortable when it's pointed out that we have traded our potential, our most sacred personal ambitions, and our godhood for social, financial, or emotional security.
It hurts a bit to be reminded that we're not living bravely in service of our spirits, but that we're living instead in fear of failure, in fear of social embarrassment, in the fear that our own happiness is unattainable and our own ambitions are selfish or unrealistic.
Howard Roark exists to show us what it is to live fearlessly, with integrity, and to find happiness and fulfillment, not in the successful realization of our dreams, but in the tireless pursuit of them.
The characters in The Fountainhead somehow come across as gods and superheroes--as fiery beacons of love, vitality, and passion that tower above the rest of humanity like skyscrapers.
It's because they refuse to lower themselves to the social standard. They will not be judged by anyone but themselves. They will not give in to fear of failure or embarrassment.
They live by their own convictions and do it with supreme honesty and without compromise. In our world, that is truly heroic. It's a heroism we all are capable of, given the courage to discard our fears, lower our defenses, release our spirit from the security of our bosom, and reveal our honest naked selves to the universe.

"Don’t work for my happiness, my brothers--show me yours--show me that it is possible--show me your achievement--and the knowledge will give me courage for mine.”

I'll be damned if that isn't the greatest summation of honest creative pursuit that I've ever heard.
This novel is a challenge to stop being scared and to start living. This novel is a lot of things.
That is the personal philosophy of The Fountainhead.
Yet, a person's happiness is their own responsibility and a person presumably can achieve happiness in a variety of ways. One doesn't have to respond to or agree with the values presented in this book.

On the other hand, the political ideology of The Fountainhead demands an answer from the reader. It demands a response, and it demands analysis and self reflection.
A political ideology is not a personal philosophy. When we vote, we're not just affecting our own lives; we're imposing our personal values onto everyone around us. We are dictating what is right and wrong. We are dictating what is good and bad. We are taking control of people's lives and applying them to our own purpose.
If we are going to take responsibility for our neighbor's health and happiness, we need to take it seriously, and we need to be ready for and worthy of that responsibility.
Have we really justified our values and our convictions to the point that we know what people need and want more than they themselves do?
The Fountainhead's political philosophy is that we DON'T know what's best for everyone. That in fact it's immoral and selfish to think for a second that we are worthy of taking responsibility for other people's lives, health, and happiness and to force our neighbors into dependence.

Howard Roark sees a better world in his mind's eye.
He asks nothing, he expects nothing, he imposes on no one.
He goes outside and begins to build his world with his own hands.

Ellsworth Toohey sees a better world in his mind's eye.
He asks for people's money, he asks for their time, he asks for their lives and their souls.
He builds his world through rhetoric and disingenuous persuasion.

We see a better world in our mind's eye.
We don't even bother to ASK for people's time, money, or lives.
We simply go to the polls and we take them.

It should at least give us pause that our highest conception of Good is only attainable through mutual enslavement.
The Fountainhead is a re-examination of what Good is and a powerful one at that.

Ellsworth Toohey is a very interesting character. You can see his methods of memetic rhetoric and persuasion at play right here in the reviews of The Fountainhead on goodreads.
There is a force (more likely many unconscious forces) working to discredit works like this, and they do it by spreading insubstantive preconceptions and memes about the work in question.
What are some utterly insubstantive and weirdly common memes working to discredit Ayn Rand and The Fountainhead? Reading the reviews will uncover at least one.

"I liked this as a kid, but now I'm older and wiser and know better".

Such a declaration does not engage the content of the book in the slightest but discredits anyone who likes it as being intellectually childish. Dirty.
It's likely not intentional--it's memetic--it's symptomatic of a wide indoctrination, and it's an unconscious tool of bolstering insubstantive arguments by implanting negative preconceptions.
The implication is of course that if you like the book, you have yet to attain the level of intellectual zen that the wider smarter public has.
This exact concept takes place in The Fountainhead when Ellsworth Toohey and his theater critic friend prop up a terrible collectivist play by spreading the meme through news outlets and a wide variety of media, "if you don't get it, you're not smart enough to get it".
The result is a public that, though they can't engage the play on any meaningful level or explain why it's great, they laud it. They all share a wink and a nod, safe in the knowledge that their tenuous view won't be challenged, and secure in the feeling that they are part of the zeitgeist.
These memes are deceptively powerful, and they likely do more to shape the world than any meaningful public discourse. Indeed, this is the foundation of today's political system: Create a platform based on powerful memetic devices in order to distract from more substantive issues (Abortion! Gays! Freedom! Even Ayn Rand herself was inappropriately used as a memetic device and buzzword in 2008's election by Republican candidate Paul Ryan), watch the memes spread through the media like wildfire, get elected based on one or two buzzword issues, and finally, maintain power and the status quo.

Here are several examples JUST from the first page (seriously, all on just one page of reviews, and all separate reviews. Imagine how deeply ingrained this is. A glance through more pages reveals just as many examples). See if you can't see the sinister and subtle manipulation of public discourse in this meme:

"... so many of us have such a complicated relationship with the work of Ayn Rand; unabashed admirers at the age of 19, unabashedly horrified by 25."

"I found this book terrifically useful in high school. with not enough life experience to understand why i was perpetually on the outside..."

"Most people have overcome their teenage angst and fantasies by, say, twenty-eight or so. At that point, Rand will have lost her magic and her books should be freely available."

"I was totally blissed out on the idea of egoism instead of egotism... and then i finished the book and grew up a few years."

"This book is a big epiphany-getter in American high school and college students."

"... which is why its philosophies are more suited for the high school mind than the adult reader. "

"Upon rereading this 50th anniversary hardback edition as an adult, I was appalled at this amoral tale."

Oh, and here's one from the front page of the world:

"Ayn Rand is one of those things that a lot of us, when we were 17 or 18 and feeling misunderstood, we'd pick up. Then, as we get older, we realize that a world in which we're only thinking about ourselves and not thinking about anybody else, in which we're considering the entire project of developing ourselves as more important than our relationships to other people and making sure that everybody else has opportunity -– that that's a pretty narrow vision. It's not one that, I think, describes what's best in America. Unfortunately, it does seem as if sometimes that vision of a 'you're on your own' society has consumed a big chunk of the Republican Party."

- Barack Obama

"... where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there's someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master."

- Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead


I'm 27 years old and somehow freedom and independence are still more than insincere political platitudes to me. I still don't want to impose my subjective values onto my neighbor with police force. I still don't want my neighbor to impose their subjective values onto me. I still don't think the ends justify the means. I still have convictions that I won't compromise, and I still won't ask my neighbor to compromise theirs so long as theirs don't involve putting a baton to my head.

There are two distinct milestones in my life that I consider invaluable to my self-esteem, happiness, and understanding of the universe.
The first was in high school, when I finally questioned what I had been told all my life, and came to the conclusion that there was no God. I had shirked religious indoctrination and felt free, happy in the thought that there was no one above me.
The second point was 2 or 3 years ago when I looked inward and finally questioned another thing that I had been told all my life, this one more sinister in that it purports to be a secular concept and is almost invisible. I reached the conclusion that there was no Greater Good.
I realized that last time I had escaped the frying pan only to leap into the fire. Now I've shirked a more powerful, more widespread, and more sinister indoctrination, and now I KNOW I'm free. I KNOW there's no one above me. Not the president, not my neighbor, not my parents, not the police, not some amorphous conception of the common or greater good.
And when I know I'm free; when I know for a scientific fact that I'm not by nature beholden to any man, god, creature, or Good in this universe, it's infuriating when people are arrogant and presumptuous enough to believe they have the moral RIGHT to control me, my money, my labor, my time, my ideals, my morals, or my life. Every sacred second of my life taken from me to pay for the NSA, or the TSA, or the war on drugs, or the DMV, or oil subsidies, or welfare, or green energy subsidies--every second I spend in forced obedience and subservience to anyone but myself--is a tragedy, and I don't see how anyone could value their own time on this earth so little as to disagree.
The truth that nobody can seem to bear is that the only way to stop others from forcing us to do Evil, is to give up our own right to force others to do Good.
What is it about losing control of our neighbor that scares us so much that we are willing to be controlled to maintain it?

I finished The Fountainhead over a coffee and as I was walking home my head was tilted up to the sky in gaping awe of buildings that suddenly seemed more massive than they'd ever seemed before, and beyond them seeing nothing but stars.

Cuốn sách này làm mình suy nghĩ nhiều quá, hôm nay trên đường về nhà mình đã suýt bị xe tông, mình chẳng còn ý niệm gì về giao thông cả. Suy nghĩ ám ảnh mình. Đây là một trong những cuốn sách tuyệt vời mình từng, sẽ đọc trong đời. Nhiều lúc mình thấy phấn khích, vui sướng nhưng cũng có lúc mình thấy sợ, cuốn sách trao cho mình khả năng và phản xạ nhận thức, mình không biết điều này là may mắn hay bất hạnh nhưng mình biết mình sẽ không bao giờ phản bội lại linh hồn của mình.

Cuốn sách này có quá nhiều điều, mình chưa hiểu hết được nên mình chỉ cho nó 4 sao. Lần sau sẽ là 5 sao.

There's a certain kind of gentleman who comes to my reviews and says:

"WRONG!"

which is seriously what some dude led with just today, and I play a game with people like this; the game is, go to their profiles and find the five-star review of Ayn Rand. It's always there!* Ayn Rand is the patron saint of mansplainers.

Other things mansplainers are super into reading
- Tropic of Cancer
- Alan Moore

* To be honest today's dude didn't have her**, but he did have an "essential reading" shelf with The Bell Curve on it, which is literally the same thing.
** Haha never mind, I just checked again because I didn't believe myself and yep, there's Anthem.

Anyway. John Oliver on "How is Ayn Rand still a thing?: "Ayn Rand has always been popular with teenagers. But she's something you're supposed to grow out of, like ska music or handjobs."

It's pronounced Ine and this is her least awful book, which is not saying much at all: it is still really terrible, as philosophy and as literature. If you want to read some Rand, start with Anthem, which is awful but short so you'll get the idea. If you still want more, go ahead and read Fountainhead but we can't be friends anymore. No one should read Atlas Shrugged and in fact no one ever has.

Listen, Ayn Rand's entire philosophy comes down to "I'm an asshole." If you disagree with that assessment, well, you know that old saying - "If you can't spot the sucker at the poker table, it's you"? You appear to be having difficulty spotting the asshole, friend.

За тази книга не може да се говори. Трябва да се прочете, изживее, осмисли, изстрада ... това не става за минути, часове, дни. Става с години. Години на мисловна дейност, затвърдени убеждения, отстоени позиции.
Промени ме. Или ме допълни. Нямам отговор, ще трябва още да поживея, да помисля и да отстоявам. Но ще цитирам неизвестен автор, който е казал :

“Егоизмът е добродетел – за тези, които го разбират”.

Прочетете книгата и помислете - за себе си, за живота си, за света около нас и за нас вътре в него, като отделни личности !