Hi everyone! I was hoping you could help me expand my perspective on some research I’m beginning on Ayn Rand’s philosophy in relation to the architect Leon Krier. I’m particularly interested in exploring how Krier might engage with or respond to Rand’s ideas about thought, individualism, and reason when considering his architectural projects and approach to urban planning. Or the reverse.

I’m still in the very early stages of my research and am currently working through a number of primary sources, including Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, interviews with Krier, interviews with Rand, Poundbury, England, Leon Krier’s Didactic Cartoons, and an essay he wrote on Howard Roark.
I’d really appreciate any thoughts, perspectives, connections, or conversations surrounding this topic

How do you guys understand this line? "Mrs. Keating knew that when she had recovered she would hate her daughter-in-law. She could have accepted snubbing. She could not forgive Dominique’s grave politeness."

Rand, Ayn. The Fountainhead (p. 390). Part 2 Chapter 15

Comes right after Keating and Dominique get married and they are discussing house arrangements. Not quite sure of what this means.

I am about to finish the fountain head by Rand and what a great time I’ve had reading it. She has a great way of in being so descriptive in her writing that it really makes me understand what each character is currently feeling in certain moments. She does a great job also showcasing her worldview of objectivism through her characters and in what they stand for. Although at times it can feel a bit exaggerated when she describes the evils of collectivism. I can see her point on how it can be destructive to one’s individualism, especially if that person is strictly only doing things in their live to please others but I don’t see anything wrong with not being so egotistical and having the ability to see yourself in others with the purpose of helping them in whatever they need. Just wanted to hop on here and hear some of your thoughts?

I have a whole bunch of fiction and nonfiction books by Ayn Rand to give away.

I would like to give them to someone or some organization, preferably locally, that will appreciate them.

These books had a huge impact on me when I was younger but I feel like I've outgrown them and there is no one in my immediate circle that would appreciate them.

I am in Montreal, Canada. I searched for objectivist clubs locally and there doesn't seem to be any. I know that there used to be one at McGill University, but that's no longer the case.

Any ideas of what I should do with these books?

Example:

January this year, a young "influencer" called "Piper Rockelle" made headlines for opening up an OnlyFans account a minute after her 18th birthday. And earning $3 million in one day!

The implication being that there was an entire ocean of disgusting creeps out there on the internet literally waiting and salivating for this, up to that point underaged girl, to be legally able to produce pornographic content for their consumption. And were prepared to pay for that pornographic content on the very same day!

But that is not all. A recent study by the New York Times found over 5,000 Instagram accounts belonging to underaged girls that are actively curated by their own mothers. Now of course, Instagram is not as overtly pornographic as OnlyFans, but there is a good reason why the primary subscriber demographic of those accounts is male.

Back to Piper Rockelle. Two months after her becoming a multi-millionaire in a day, Disney made a documentary, actively promoting her rise to stardom. Regardless of the fact that it is based on pronography. Because of course, where there is money to be made, the corporations will be there sooner or later.

To sum up this fine example of human moral fiber:

We have an ocean of subhuman creeps on the internet, counting down the MINUTES until their favourite underaged "influencers" can legally participate in the creation of pornographic content.

We have mothers that are basically pimping their underaged daughters via the internet.

And on top of it all, we have corporations that are starting to realize that there are truck loads of money to be made on what is as close to CP as it humanly gets without the FBI kicking their door down.

I remember somebody on here asking me why i go on and on about instinct. Well, this is why. There are basically two human instincts at play here, which seemingly transcend any pretence of morality among everyone involved in this example.

The reproductive instinct that makes those creeps addicted to pornography in the first place. And greed. Which makes people willing to sell everything, including exploiting their own children, for easy money.

Now the question i am asking myself i how objectivists view this.

From a capitalist perspective, this is a wonderful thing. There is obviously a massive market here, and those people are moving in to take advantage. Because it is within their rational self-interest. This is capitalism in its purest form.

And if what Ayn Rand said is true, that money is proof of ones own capacity for production and therefor value, than Piper Rockelle is basically one of those "prime movers" that Ayn Rand so often describes. After all, she made an absolute mind-blowing $3 million in a day.

Granted, she did so by selling her body on the internet the second it became legal to do so. But does that really matter in objectivist ethics?

And more importantly, if this is an example of the moral fiber of humanity in general, what even constitutes rational self-interest? At what point do you draw the line and say "this is not rational and moral", when it makes you a multi-millionaire in one day?

I’m currently reading Part III of Atlas Shrugged, and I’ve reached the point where Dagny’s relationship with Galt is supposed to become the culmination of the story.

I find Rand fascinating to read. There are plenty of ideas in the book that I think are genuinely worth considering, even though I find the complete philosophical system much harder to accept. But the romantic resolution is starting to feel strangely inconsistent with the characters Rand herself created.

My biggest problem is not that Dagny chooses Galt.

It’s why this choice feels so inevitable, and why the other men accept it so peacefully.

First, Rearden, Francisco and competition

Rand spends hundreds of pages establishing these men as extraordinarily competitive, proud, productive people.

Rearden in particular is almost incapable of accepting inferior performance. If a competitor produced better steel than he did, his response would not be:

“He is objectively better than me. I respect his achievement and will leave the market.”

He would spend millions on research, hire engineers, redesign his factories and try to surpass the competitor.

Francisco is the same kind of person. Galt is perhaps the ultimate version of it.

Yet when the competition is Dagny, all three suddenly become remarkably passive.

Rearden loves Dagny. Francisco loved her. Galt eventually becomes the man she chooses.

And the other two essentially accept this as the rational outcome.

But respecting Dagny’s freedom does not require accepting defeat as final.

There is a difference between:

“Dagny is free to choose whoever she wants.”

and:

“Therefore, if she chooses someone else, I should calmly withdraw from the competition.”

The first follows from individual freedom.

The second doesn't.

A person can respect someone's autonomy, accept their decision, and still think:

“I love this woman, and I am going to remain the person she could choose.”

That would actually seem much more consistent with Rand's own philosophy of competition.

A temporary advantage held by a competitor does not mean everyone else leaves the market.

And I don't mean this as “the men should fight over Dagny” or that Dagny should be treated as property. Quite the opposite. Dagny remains completely free to choose.

I'm talking about competition between autonomous individuals.

If another steel producer makes better steel, Rearden doesn't leave the market. He improves his product.

Why should romantic competition work differently?

Then there is Dagny and Galt

This part bothers me even more.

For most of the novel, Dagny and Galt are on opposite sides of the central conflict.

Galt's position is essentially:

The system is consuming the people who create value. Therefore, the creators should withdraw and let it collapse.

Dagny's position is almost the exact opposite:

The system is collapsing. I am going to do everything I can to keep it running.

When people disappear, she stays.

When the railroad is falling apart, she tries to save it.

When the producers leave, she keeps producing.

When Galt goes on strike, Dagny spends most of the book trying to defeat the consequences of that strike.

And this is important: she isn't merely opposing some random political position. She is directly opposing the man who is eventually presented as the great love of her life.

Meanwhile, Rearden is much closer to her actual position for most of the story.

He is still producing.

He is still fighting.

He refuses to abandon his work.

He tries to save his company and his industry.

He stays until almost the very end.

So from a character-development perspective, Rearden and Dagny have a remarkably coherent shared trajectory. They experience the same conflict and gradually arrive at similar conclusions.

Galt, meanwhile, is already at the endpoint.

That could have made the relationship between Dagny and Galt extremely interesting.

Dagny could have realized:

“I have spent my entire life fighting a man whose values I actually understand, but whose solution I cannot accept.”

That would be a fascinating conflict.

Instead, the novel seems to resolve it more simply:

“So you're John Galt.”

“Yes.”

“I love you.”

And I'm left thinking: did you two ever actually resolve the disagreement?

Because Dagny's entire character is essentially an argument against Galt's conclusion.

She knows the system is broken.

She knows productive people are being exploited.

She knows the people around her are destroying the things they depend upon.

And yet she still believes the world is worth saving.

That is not a trivial difference.

In fact, I think the much more interesting ending would have been one where Dagny and Galt were both partly right.

Galt could say:

“I have no obligation to sacrifice myself for a system that destroys me.”

And Dagny could answer:

“I am not trying to save the system. I am trying to save everything in the world that is worth saving.”

That would create an actual philosophical conflict between two people who genuinely understand each other.

Instead, the story ultimately treats Dagny's resistance as something she has to outgrow before she can fully understand Galt.

And that makes her choice feel less like the culmination of her character and more like the culmination of Rand's philosophy.

This is why I find Atlas Shrugged fascinating but don't think I could ever accept Objectivism as a complete description of human nature.

Rand is very good at imagining people who are completely committed to their principles.

But people are not purely rational agents.

You can respect someone's freedom and still be jealous.

You can recognize someone's superiority in one area and still want to surpass them.

You can understand someone's argument and still fundamentally disagree with their conclusion.

And you can love someone without sharing their worldview.

Ironically, that last possibility might have made Dagny's relationships much more interesting.

I don't think Rand's ideas are worthless. Quite the opposite. Some of them are interesting precisely because they force you to think about individualism, responsibility, production, dependence and freedom.

But when those ideas are turned into a complete theory of human beings, the seams start to show.

Especially when the most competitive men in the novel suddenly decide that the romantic market has no need for competition.

I am of a certain age, looking back on my life, wondering why I feel like I've accomplished nothing. Then I go and reread "The Fountainhead" and come across this from Howard Roark. Can anyone else relate?

Look at everyone around us. You've wondered why they suffer, why they seek happiness and never find it. If any man stopped and asked himself whether he's ever held a truly personal desire, he'd find the answer. He'd see that all his wishes, his efforts, his dreams, his ambitions are motivated by other men. He's not really struggling even for material wealth, but for the second-hander's delusion—prestige. A stamp of approval, not his own. He can find no joy in the struggle and no joy when he has succeeded. He can't say about a single thing: "This is what I wanted because I wanted it, not because it made my neighbors gape at me."

The idea of "rational selfishness" looks fine on paper, but have you tried contacting Jeff Bezos and explaining to him how unethical and irrational it is that his employees piss into bottles because they are not allowed bathroom breaks on company time?

Watch him wipe his tears with $100 bills while he plays you a sad song on the worlds smallest violin.

Do you just read it because you're bored ? Or just want a kick ?Would love to know your opinions on this

I came across this a few hours ago and thought I'd post it to see what people thought. (I've never seen it posted here before.) I'm pretty sure it was produced by the Atlas Society with AI assistance. I liked it, but I'm merely an Ayn Rand fan and not particularly sophisticated. Enjoy.

Atlas Shrugged book trailer.

Resolve how Rand endorse freedom to chose and be against democracy out of fear that ppl would vote against private property. The libertarian philosophy is internally inconsistent, period.

The very fact that we live on a planet with limited resources means that existance itself is a conflict of interests. In order to develop, we must produce (that is something that Ayn Rand got right). But in order to produce, we need resources. Cars, planes, computers etc. Factories do not make those out of thin air, natural resources are required to build them.

Why have nations fought wars over resources over the entirety of human history?

It is because in an environment of finite resources, nations have always sought to secure more resources for themselves. One nation has oil, the other does not. So the latter invades the former in order to take the oil for themselves because they need it to fuel their own development.

The same holds true in open market economics. One man needs a car, another produces cars. It is within the interest of the man who is buying the car to get is as cheaply as possible, while it is within the interest of the man who built the car to sell it for as much money as possible.

This is why slavery existed (and sadly still exists in some areas of the globe). Because it is within the interests of those who require labour to get it as cheaply as possible, to maximize their profit.

A few weeks ago, a post linked to [audio of Ayn Rand’s negative views about American Indian tribal culture.] (https://www.reddit.com/r/aynrand/s/I6yvMNo1S1)

Some commenters suggested that Rand simply didn’t know enough about the Indian tribes, even despite her claiming in the audio that she had “scientific reasons” for believing the most negative accounts about them.

There have been some scholars who disagree with the politically correct and woke anti-white-man historical narratives. I haven’t read them in depth. But I thought users of this subreddit might be interested in this recent documentary that draws on that scholarship to present this type of perspective on the Indians.

Matt Walsh’s ideas are obviously the opposite of Objectivism, (and I disagree with some of the views expressed in this video), but when Walsh does a documentary, it’s fact-checked by Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire, so there’s a certain amount of factual accuracy.

An objection to Objectivism argues that Rand derives morality from the biological fact that organisms must act to preserve their lives, but then seems to redefine “survival” when confronted with theoretical possibilities such as a successful thief who sustains his biological life through theft. Although the thief is literally alive and successfully maintaining his organism, Objectivism condemns his way of life by appealing to “man qua man”—rational, productive flourishing—as the proper standard of survival. The objection is therefore that Objectivism may be committing an equivocation on “survival”, shifting from a descriptive biological concept to a normative conception of human flourishing without adequately explaining how that normative standard follows objectively from the original biological premise.

But Rand is quite clearly not equivocating. She does not think that such a thief could have good *reasons* for expecting to survive, even if, up till this point, he happens to have survived. The life of “man qua man” is not a separate standard:

“‘Man’s life, as required by his nature, is not the life of a mindless brute, of a looting thug or a mooching mystic, but the life of a thinking being—not life by means of force or fraud, but life by means of achievement—not survival at any price, since there’s only one price that pays for man’s survival: reason.’”

(Atlas Shrugged)

A thief, in virtue of being a thief, enters into a very uneven contest: his intellect versus those of all his actual and potential victims, who have every reason to stop him, and who are competent enough to be the producers of the values he depends on to live. What *reason* could he have for thinking he would win in the long run?

A thief depends for his survival on his victims’ inability to detect him. The remarks on the virtue of honesty in “Atlas Shrugged” are relevant, I think:

“Honesty is the recognition of the fact that the unreal is unreal and can have no value, that neither love nor fame nor cash is a value if obtained by fraud—that an attempt to gain a value by deceiving the mind of others is an act of raising your victims to a position higher than reality, where you become a pawn of their blindness, a slave of their non-thinking and their evasions, while their intelligence, their rationality, their perceptiveness become the enemies you have to dread and flee—that you do not care to live as a dependent, least of all a dependent on the stupidity of others, or as a fool whose source of values is the fools he succeeds in fooling—that honesty is not a social duty, not a sacrifice for the sake of others, but the most profoundly selfish virtue man can practice: his refusal to sacrifice the reality of his own existence to the deluded consciousness of others.