Skip to content →

Category: Philosophy

Temptations vs. Aspirations

How many times did I made a distinction between these two terms for myself? How many times did I encountered a situation where I could clearly have experienced these two desires simultaneously? Well, it was very unclear until I found them crossing my way almost all the time. Every time I was about to follow my heart, I was offered enormous temptation. But yes, things were not like this from the start. In the beginning, I didnt have too many choices, then, I had the temptations only. Some years back, I didnt even know about this follow-your-heart thingie. Reason: perhaps, it was not that mature, or its voices were so humble and weak, or perhaps I didnt even know what the heart is. Maybe, I was pretty messed up between these different entities that I was totally unable to make a clear distinction. It is pretty scary to look back that it took almost 24 years to understand the voice, the real one, of the heart. The good thing is that it somehow occurred, but the bad thing is the question am-I-really-willing-to-choose-one?

There is a very thin line between these two terms. It is a matter of consistent behavior of mind and how well we have allowed it to make contact with the heart. There is one more important thing, but it can be nullified when the situation is about follow-ur-heart stuff. It is about making attempt to live according to other’s perception or gain acceptance. It occurs in general conditions and the conditions when you are confused with your choices and desires and decisiveness. The key factor with the temptation is that it doesn’t look bad until it encounters aspiration. Most of the times, temptations and aspirations look synonymous to each other and you cant tell the difference.

Temptation takes many forms. The temptation of money is prominent here, sure, but so is the appeal of being respected, the ache to be loved, and the desire to fulfill other people’s ideals. All can manifest themselves outwardly as “ambition”. Then there is the temptations that sap our strength; the seduction of convenience, and the sedative of tranquility. Even when you started understanding your aspirations, temptations manifest themselves like the inevitable steps to be followed to reawaken to the aspirations. [Po Bronson]

For example, the money. The money, in most of it forms, works as temptation in our lives. Almost all the time, it makes us feel that its the only thing that can help us getting our aspirations. We seem to believe that we cant proceed with our aspirations without the help of money. Second thing, money can be useful if we, sometimes, consider it mere an element of the mixture of the prerequisite things required to live up by the aspirations. It becomes the most powerful temptation when we start considering that it is the only thing that can help us. Obviously, it is almost impossible to overcome a temptation by the help of the same temptation. And the fact is that having money might make it possible, but doesnt make it easy.

The temptation is powerful because it is highly dynamic and the aspiration is powerful because it is highly static or consistent. We weaken temptation by reducing its range, making it consistent and static, and removing its dynamic behavior by which it changes its forms as per the requirements. We weaken aspiration by making it dynamic where we allow it to change its forms as per our comforts and suitability. Let me find out how I did it. During my first 21 years, my temptations were – power, ache to become intellectual, fame, love, sex, money, respect, love, fame, money, and comfort zone. My aspirations were: love, respect, power, money, knowledge, wisdom, success. The morals of this story (of 21 years) are – Both were highly dynamic, both were closely intertwined, no distinctions between them, the situation was so worse that those two were trading their forms most of the times. During next 3 years, somehow I concentrated on the aspirations and didnt care about temptations whether they are being strengthened or weakened. First thing I did was that I tried to make my aspirations as static as possible. Then, I looked back for the temptations and let all my temptations be satisfied. This enabled the temptations not to manifest themselves as ambition. There were two clearly visible consequences of what I did in those 3 years. First, I worked on both unbiased (means, I didnt have any goal or intention to promote or demote any of them) and understood what these both are. Second, I started learning about the follow-my-heart and experienced/understood the ways to make distinctions between the temptations and the aspirations. It didnt really arrive at any conclusion or manifesto for my life, but it definitely designed a framework for the same and it made me believe that there is something like this. I somehow tried to understand the behavior of all kind of temptations. This helped in a way that I started encountering the differences automatically and it kept increasing the distance between these two. So, did I factually overcame temptations? NO. So what did I get out of all this? I have started re-awakening to my aspirations. And what I am gonna do next? Well, truth be told, I don’t really know what I am gonna do next. But, it will definitely be decisive because someone has to win this game and it has to be progressive because it seems to be going in the right direction.

Do I have something concrete to mention here? Probably yes. I think that I have found some secrets. Let me try to write them. First, let the temptations reach at saturation level; second, make temptations and aspirations encounter each other; third, think about the pro-con of the things you are getting or receiving rather than the things you are not getting, etc, etc. I am yet to find rest of the secrets, but I can tell you about some findings as per my experiences and experiments. The most important point is that it is advisable to concentrate on the aspirations. If you dont understand your aspirations, you will never be able to eradicate the presence of temptations form your life. The day you understand your aspirations completely, you will find that you are no more confused and messed up with the temptations. You will be able to identify them very clearly and that’s how you will overcome them. Second important point is that trust the voice of your heart and follow it rather than believing in fantasies and following the words of “self-help books” like Fountainhead, You Can Win, Monk-Ferrari, etc, etc.

Leave a Comment

The Perception Point

It is a matter of fact, however conflicting, that your personality is identified by the number of people who are aware of your existence rather than the number of attributes attained by you. This leads to the subjective nature of your existence that which is ironic in nature at any particular given time. What I meant to say is all about the description of your existence in one person’s mind, how is it identified, how often does it transform, and what does it exactly mean. The core thing behind this entire dilemma is the perception and the inconsistency of mind. The inconsistency here refers to the tendency of the mind to reach at one solution by mean of the easier and the faster way to satisfy itself. More confusion occurs when the similar problem arrives at the different space-time combination where everything is eternally existent except that particular temporary idea or situation of the occurrence of the problem. In fact, the problem is also the same but the mind interprets it in different several ways in its different occurrences because of its inherent tendency. This tendency, henceforth, leads to more confusion and it corrupts the short-term effectiveness of one’s mind. Sometimes, these generic consequences and evidences get interpreted as the most effective way of analyzing things, however this is utter foolish in nature.

The perception is one thing that contributes heavily in this entire game plan. For example, a particular person knows you but that doesn’t mean that your existence will be identified by one particular absolute attribute or a group of consistent factors. You will be identified by the person by the several processes of the heuristics carried by the mind of that particular person and it is certainly not necessary that you always fall at any given point within the network of that heuristic knowledge. The person takes several references to satisfy the logic by using the vague understanding of fact and the knowledge gathered by the mean of heuristics. The point is that if the person tends to identify your absolute means, then, at the same time, why the person doesn’t want to identify your existence and get aware of the real facets and facts. Your existence is no way relative to any other idea or object. In similar ways, the identification of your existence by any functioning system is also not relative or referential. The real-time variables always intend to diminish the absolute nature of any truth and the human psychology plays a mystic role in capturing and elaborating those variables. Talking about the variables, they are not usually objective or self-descriptive in nature, rather they are some sort of mixture of representation of your instincts that shouldn’t be taken as the direct references of those instincts. These variables take form after combining the instinct or your inclusive factors, the immediate environment, and the object that acts as a mirror for those factors in that given environment. To be precise, that object is the person who puts the final remarks for that variable and grabs all the particulars of that variable. The variable is then analyzed as a direct instance of you being an object. After that the real-time variable is gathered by that person, the person’s mind starts the operation in its functional system by picking all its inherent direct and indirect knowledge that can be related with the attributes of that variable by any mean. Surprising enough, the system intends not to connect to any real-time factor that can contribute in reaching a perfect consequential result. It is very orthodox in nature and the proof and consistency of used knowledge can be put under a question. And after the system produces the result, though it satisfies the producer or the person who is performing this entire process, it puts a big-time confusion in your mind and you start wondering about your own personality and attributes.

There can be two, or maybe more, things that may occur in the second person’s mind. First, the mind has inhabited itself for that sort of operation and it can never emerge beyond its own comfort zone, as I said above. Second, the person’s whole system has generated an energy that persuades the person’s mind not to spend a bunch of required effort to produce dynamic processes and logical and far more real consequences. In laymen’s language, the second person doesn’t give a damn to understand you and never bother about your existence and your relation with that person’s existence. So, why does this process occur in the mind of that person? This is because the person is also conflicting in nature and when she doesn’t make any true effort to spend by your mean, at the same time, she also needs to satisfy her own logical needs. Therefore, she chooses the easier and faster way. As a result, what should you gather from whole process? As I think, you also should not bother about any consequences that are reached by someone else’s mind that all depends on the inconsistency of the mind and the perception of that person. You can’t help bringing consistency in her mind and can never capture the true nature of the perception and the related reaction. Well, this result can help producing a rather toxic reaction in your own mind where you repeat the previous operation with your own knowledge base. The second consequence can be that you also intend to get satisfied by that result provided that the result somehow meets your expectation or your own self perceptions. The second consequence may seems fruitful to you at times, but, truth be told, both reaction shouldn’t be carried away by you. It is something like perception of someone else is pushing its protocols to control your nature and originality and all of a sudden, your actions start denying your own existence. In case, if this action continues and repeat itself several times, you stop being referred as a truly living human by the protocols of the truth and the universe. It’s like squashing yourself in a tinier object or a instance that signifies a mockery.

The perception point, if used in accordance and coordination with the common senses and the consciousness, can be a very powerful theory to demystify the hidden truth of the universe and can immensely help to build a far more robust knowledge base. Well, I am talking about something very objective in character, but some associate tools used here are quite a bit collaborative in nature as well. Yes, I am referring to the use of common senses here. Again, this collaboration can be productive and destructive also, depending on the coordination between all the senses and objectivity of the usages. Common Sense is far beyond its defined range. What we call/see “common sense” is the outcome of our learning and experiences and the tendency of the nature to push us towards it. When we talk about common sense, we talk about intersecting the subsets of all our senses altogether. The optimum result occurs only when all of our senses function properly and consciously. And most of the times, when we seem to apply the common sense, we hardly employ all/even half of our senses, rather we take references from the data stored in our minds that is again referenced from several sources(mostly external). Total consciousness is a primitive prerequisite to produce and use common sense. I am afraid that we rarely use our common sense in our lives, forget the day-2-day activities. That’s why, perhaps, I usually prefer to refer common sense as a very uncommon thing in the living world. It has to be understood while regulating the application of the theory of the perception point. Alas, I sometimes realize that why the mystic forces of our existence, like the soul or the heart, plays significant roles in our lives. They somehow don’t satisfy the reasoning of our minds, but at the same time, our reasoning finds it too difficult to demystify these forces. So, perhaps, you shall better be proceeding with the reasoning and mysteries both until one of them starts controlling others existence. In the meanwhile, though you may not assure about the 100% functioning of you perception point, you should try your best to, or better say you must, not live according to others perceptions. In fact, how can one inconsistent operation help some other perception to become truly consistent? This is very simple and if it does satisfy someone’s mind, then the mind should also try to get rid of all those vague ideas and orthodox behaviors. Maybe, at one point of your life, you shall be able to control all the objects that are perceptive in nature.

Painting source:

Leave a Comment

Objective Musings

Howard Roark & Objectivism

I strongly oppose people’s opinions and justifications that the ideas given by the Fountainhead don’t have the balls to do it so people appreciate it. One can never know that whether someone has to do something with it or not. It may be possible that one couldn’t get anything executable from the ideas and idols indicated in the book it doesn’t mean that any other person wouldn’t have received any good out of it. Plus, there is not a single thing exists in the world that can be proven as 100% hypocritical. It all depends on one’s mind and after all, the reasons and the attitudes.

It doesn’t matter that whether you get inspired by the book and the philosophies of AR the point is what you did/are doing in your life and what is the real soul behind all your actions for example, what do think about Steve Jobs? He might be totally unaware of everything said about objectivism, but I observe him as a Roark (for some extent..if u compare him with Roark from FH). Also, nothing is permanent in the universe..neither YOU nor I and nothing can be kept intact and untouched for ever. Everything get customized according to the person and the time if we talk about movement that’s why it’s life it is impossible to act as a virtue.

And in real terms (and as far as I conceived), objectivism has nothing to do with individualism, reason, motive, and self until they are driven by single soul and total consciousness (inability to understand/conceive/interpret (madness also) is not consciousness). You can’t generalize the opinion and the interpretation when it comes to individual’s thought upon a particular thing. The individual also can’t be proven wrong (including you and me) UNTIL the view reflects him/herself only. This is one thing where individualism implies its effect and it not only falls under the doctrine of rationalism, but also under the whole theory of existence.

My personal opinion is that FH has turned my life and I also like this character more than (most of) the real ones but, I have my own interpretation and way of customization and I live with my own philosophies may be, because I don’t like to act under any kind of virtue and, as I think, all those philosophies are wrong who can’t be completely related with the life and the actions of a life. The philosophy is one thing that is 100% practical it can’t just live in thoughts and dreams it is what we do, we live with, we die after anything else is not philosophy. People may not be agree but its true that somewhere in my life and at some extent, the theory of objectivism and reason has changed my life, its functions, and its behavior. I wasn’t the same after I started thinking from this angle. Well, we all carry an amount of individualism and rationalism from our birth but, in my life, it made the difference when I took care of it and started nourishing it. I don’t think that the use of these words have the potential to kick you.

Implementation vs. Representation

It’s all about the implementation we have been talking about. Even the Fountainhead and the story of Howard Roark were the implementations of the whole theory. I would have consulted Ayn Rand (sadly, the year of her death and the year of my birth were the same) about this confusion that given the birth to so many debates. As I think, The Fountainhead was never a representation of objectivism, individualism, and all the related theories. Howard Roark is just an implementation (one of the several possible ones) of those theories. Since it was a fiction, the comprehension of the character was quite fascinating and, for some people, hyper-representation, unreal, and hyper-heroic. That implementation can be falsified by one in the current scene and can’t look like possible one.but still, it is achievable not in the same manner, but it can be achieved. The representation of the character (not the theory) was heroic because AR worshiped the theory and she implemented the theories as the best she could do or she wanted to be happened in her times. If still someone quotes Roark as exact implementation of this philosophy then every worshiper will have to become architect and find Toohey/Gail to show his heroic abilities which looks like amusing. The hero lives reside in ourselves we need to find that person, worshiping one particular implementation and living under the virtue of Howard Roark are not like practicing the theories of objectivism. We can’t think from others mind, similarly, we can’t live according to others life following the behavior of Roark is not individualism, it’s altruism. So, the whole story and real facet is about the one’s own implementation of theories, rather than a complete representation.

The world has always been inhabited by Roarks and Galts they are still herewith you, without you, or within you.scientifically, it has been proved that we don’t represent just one person, rather we are a mixture of plenty of personalities and their traits one of them can be Roark, hidden or may be afraid or may be sick as soon as u find this trait called “Roark” in your several personalities and make a connection for this person to your soul you may get the real meaning of objectivism. objectivism and the reason is not just about the mind, the structure of neurons, and their logic it’s somehow deeply intertwined with the our inner self that provide the guidance to our nervous system to find and choose the real (in real terms),. and that we can call the truth or “the right way” yes, I’m agree that we don’t need the Foutainhead many people don’t know about it, but certainly knew their right way and they lived for it in their entire lives.that’s all.

The Greatness

There is one more thing. Why do we either hate or love Hoard Roark? Why don’t we make such debates about Superman, Batman, Vito Carleone, Adolf Hitler, or other more heroic person than Howard Roark? Why can’t someone ignore this immortal, impractical character? Should I say that there is always a Roark(as a trait, rather than just a person) hidden within our multiple layers of personalities? The one who loves Roark make this trait emerge from within and the one who hates Roark makes this trait suppressed because they don’t want to deal with this kind of revolutionary change within her/himself. The trait always want to emerge from within. Only few times, the story of Howard Roark or the fountainhead or the philosophy of Mrs Rand becomes stimulant for this reaction. What about those individualists and creators who lived before this story came to the world? Aren’t their characteristics and the lives heroic, considering they were also some sort of implementations of the theory of objectivism. What is rationality? The thing u are capable to do is rational and the thing Superman can do is irrational? Court’s way of giving justice is ethical and Vito’s way is unethical? Roark’s ability to struggle with the society is real and Superman’s ability to fly is unreal? Hitler was also loyal for his values (more loyal and dedicated than anyone) and he has had the reasons as well. Who decides the truth and the rationality? Who is right–Rand or Lenin? And why do we always need support or take references from history for our acts and logic?

Well, when Engels died, there were only few dozens people standing behind his coffin. Someone asked to Marx– “You always told Engels a great person. How can he be great when there are only 20-25 people came to assist him in his last journey? You must be mistaken.” Marx answered– ” Friend, I don’t say Engels great after counting number of his followers or admirers. I have a different reason behind my statement. People who know Engels have only two ways either they can be agree with him or they can’t be agree with him.One can never ignore Engels. And that’s why I call Engels a great person.” I think that this story has the potential to answer so many questions.

The practical implementation of any kind of philosophy and the theory again solely depends upon that particular person. As each person has different kind of traits and behaviors, similarly, each implementation of a theory also has different kind of behaviors and facets. For this consequence, the theory shouldn’t be blamed or be considered impractical/unrealistic. And again, it is immaterial that who said this or how did we get to know about this ideology and develop our concerns and thoughts to support this. One can never decide the right or the wrong for another person and s/he can’t judge it as well. If someone does this, it’ll go against the right of existence. Let the person decide for himself that what is right and what is wrong.

The Liberty

Liberty gives details of specific freedoms of action without obligations toward others, but recognizes that obligations may exist. Simply stated, it resembles “freedom from” and “freedom to”, but not the freedom as a whole. One’s liberty is a set of actions(not specified by that particular one) under a set of protocols which depict boundaries of one’s liberty. That means you can think of liberty as the absence of obstacles external to the agent as well as the presence of control on the part of the agent. As obvious, it is strongly connected with the socio-political system, so, it is about going through the right doors for the right reasons. Though you can think of the several possible doors and the reasons behind each way, the right door and the right reason will never be decided by you. As I think, liberty is neither similar to freedom(of someone) nor an instance of freedom(of someone). It may be an application of freedom for a defined society which pretends to resemble freedom of an individual in that society. It remains a liberty for the society until the concepts of the application are based upon free association and voluntary exchange. Afterward, it creates a pseudo-appearance of liberty for the people. On the individual level, you get the capability to make choices for your thoughts (that resembles your freedom), but when it comes to implement the suitable choice decided by you, the freedom converts into liberty under the anarchy.and you choose the second or third-best suited choice which won’t seem to cross the boundaries of protocols. As anarchists say that it is a conscientious decision to honor the freedom to choose without fear of trespass, the exact definition of liberty varies under different social (say political) system. This liberty stops more “bad” but it stops more “good” as well. Again, the “bad” and the “good” are not similar for each individual and then, it defeats the rationalism for an individual. And since, the definition of liberty resides under a political system, it denies any chance of furnishing and improving one’s freedom. Afterward, the liberty becomes a signature of collective-objectivism.

I’m against the social definition of liberty because it’s against the doctrine of freedom. I’ve some counter-points for those people that objectivism inherits the theories of liberty, in the context of The Fountainhead.

  1. Liberty gives details of specific freedoms of action without obligations toward others, but recognizes that obligations may exist. How often Roark tried to recognize the obligation?
  2. Though you can think of the several possible doors and the reasons behind each way, the right door and the right reason will never be decided by you. Do admirers of Roark believe in accepting this protocol that resembles liberty?

  3. One’s liberty is a set of actions under a set of protocols which depict boundaries of one’s liberty.

  4. It remains a liberty for the society until the concepts of the application are based upon free association and voluntary exchange.I think i don’t need to discuss on this, especially “free association and voluntary exchange”.

  5. Liberty resembles freedom, but what if freedom resembles liberty? Taking case of Fountainhead, in the terms of society, liberty resembles freedom and people were living in that pseudo-freedom. But, in the case of particular individuals, wasn’t freedom resembling liberty? If not completely, then a part of it.

And after all, suppose I’m a not an individualist and I exists with all Good and no Bad AND I don’t believe in pseudo-freedom but in TOTAL liberty, then isn’t the philosophy of Liberty infringing my liberty? If you are not agree to suppose anything, then didn’t Roark infringed liberty of the society and people who didn’t believe in things like objectivism? Remember, you can’t prove someone wrong/sinister just because he isn’t objectivist. Being objectivist or being like Roark is not always an ideal situation. There are/may be some exceptions, if looking at other way round.

The Psychology of Virtue

I’d like to state a generic kind of tragedy with all the philosophies including objectivism. I do never understand that why people always make equivalent relation between an object and its instance or, better say, a philosophy and its implementation in one man. Well, what is objectivism? Howard Roark? and what is Buddhism? Gautam Buddha? Absolutely Not. One more instance, who is referred as the most intelligent scientist of this century? May be, Albert Einstein! And everyone want to be an Einstein (remember, not as intelligent or talented as Einstein). So, what do you do? Write a theory about how to make nuclear bomb or e=mc2 in italic or strike through letters!! In 1940s, making nuclear bomb created a history, but in 2000s, destroying nuclear bombs can create a history. You can be an Einstein if you can destroy all the nuclear bombs. So, what makes one intelligent? Relating all the events(instances) from the history with your life isn’t the way of realizing a philosophy or a theory. We keep reading books and histories, making debates, and unconsciously we start living in a virtue, not even a virtue but a virtue made from several stories. All inexperienced and without any understanding. That’s where comes the difference – between intellect and wisdom, collection of thoughts and production of thoughts, awareness of truth and knowing the truth.

Now, I come at the theory of objectivism. As I think, each living person has a seed of objectivism and it can grow any time. And yes, objectivism has never been obsolete or something that has no use in practical life. Almost every achiever (philosopher, inventor, scientist, intellectual, revolutionary) has started his/her journey being an objectivist. I’m certainly not a follower, but I really admire it because I have a reason behind this admiration. And everyone has got a seed of individualism..this is just the matter of realization and nourishing it. That’s where Fountainhead works and that’s where it worked for youand that’s its uniqueness. The Fountainhead, most of the times, works as a catalyst for that trait. If you wouldn’t have a quest for this trait and behavior, it could have been possible that this philosophy wouldn’t have affected you.

I strongly reject the philosophy having no use in LIFE. As fas as Roark and objectivism are concerned, it is all about the relationship between Fountainhead (story of Roark) and objectivism. Roark is adored by words but rejected by life of people (the readers of FH). There are some reasons and contradictions as well. People admired life of Roark and worshiped him, but rejected his way of living his life by saying it impractical and too-much-hyped, and the philosophy of objectivism declared obsolete. I’m against this believe when people equalize Howard Roark and Fountainhead. When I said against making equivalent relation between a philosophy and its implementation in one particular man, I didn’t mean to say that there is no practical implication of one particular philosophy. This is a specialization and you can’t equalize an object and its instance. I again say that Roark is an implementation of Objectivism, not a representation of objectivism. In other words, Roark is a member of the set “objectivists”. I don’t think that it looks like “hypocritical”.

I try to see the other way round. Well, virtues guide people sometimes and help people live and see forward I’m not criticizing this but I criticize when people start living in virtue and they never overcome it. This is against every philosophy and a reason to destroy that. You also don’t need to laugh at “inexperienced and without any understanding” this is what followers do, this is where “living in virtue” leads, this is how “great philosophies” lose their meanings. Dear, innovation lies in questions, more than in answers. The journey(of wisdom/truth/innovation) starts when question arises and ends where solutions arrive. If you start your journey from answer, you’ll not be seeking truth, rather proving some theories based on prior axioms. The “virtue” has its own effects and counter-effects. As soon as u get it, u understand the value of the philosophy.

Story of Life

The word “Philosophy” is arrived from Greece, where it is called “Philosofia”. Philosofia = philo+sofia, that means, story of life. When we say philosophy, we refer to “story of life”. It means “story of my life” which immediately refers to one’s own life, experiences, events, learned things, sought truth, thoughts, actions, and all related stuffs. Why I’m writing it here because my philosophy is all about the things I experienced/learned/felt/discovered from my life. My life is not continued from anyone else’s life, so my philosophy is not followed by any other philosophy. And why I admire some of prior philosophies/people? Because, sometimes in my life, I seemed to be implementing that philosophy or part of it. This time again, the quest arrived earlier and answer came later. It’s not like that I read Fountainhead and when I finished I said that “yes, this thing/answer looks great and now I should implement it somewhere in my life”, without understanding the philosophy, more specifically, its implementation. I can’t stand with those theories/philosophies who can’t be implemented in a life. I found objectivism worthwhile from this point and that’s why I admire it. This is my reason.


You might have got my point that why I referred Roark “an implementation of objectivism”, rather than “a representation of objectivism” and withstand the believe to make equilibrium relation between Roark and Objectivism. Roark is a member of objectivism set, may be the most powerful, and since he was an implementation part, say example, of objectivism, there may exist something that doesn’t resemble like true/practically true objectivism.

I think that the whole idea of Mrs Rand must be conveying the philosophy of objectivism to the world, not the story of Howard Roark. If not, she would have written Fountainhead, part-I, II, III or Howard Roark and Goblet of Fire or something. In her fictions as well, lives/behaviors of Keira, Roark, and Galt may show contradictions, however, they all were objectivists. What does this mean? We got a contradictory philosophy, about which the author herself is confused or if not, the philosophy is all about the thoughts/mind/books rather than the philosophy of life/actions?? I think that she also imparted an idea to her readers that not all the things are absolute in terms of implementations, most of the things are relatives as well. Relative to whom??—the person who adores/implements the philosophy in either way. Remember, Atlas Shrugged has been referred as her greatest melodrama and in fact, she tried to make it so and after that she didn’t write any fiction.

I’ll advise people to stop digging the story of Roark too much, that’s a history (a fictitious history), and take care of the “objectivism”. It may have some use.

Images Courtesy: (1st) & (3rd)

One Comment

The soul of the dawn

During the time of day and night, a time occurs that is so precious and lively gift to us from the name of divine. The time is called “the time of Angelus“. This is the time when light and darkness merge. When the darkness comes and merges within the light, it gives birth to a greatest transformation of the nature. Masters say that you can never find more beautiful time than the dawn. There is one another event, when light merges within the darkness, and then there comes the time for monsters. It definitely doesn’t matter whether the light goes in or comes out. The real spirit lies beneath the transformation and the moment when both merge. Perhaps, that’s the reason the law of nature keeps the universe live and full of liveliness. When the dawn calls for the holy spirit, a sound appears and we often become mesmerized by it. We forget our appearance and souls. If we can listen to the rhythum, we may find the reason behind our lives and the facts why the nature wants us to be here. This moment comes everyday, but we never realized the chorus within our hearts and never felt the dawn as its real appearance.

I always wondered about the power that shows the directions to the sun, the moon, the wind, the clouds, the birds, the lives, the spirits, and the Roarks. Who/what is it? Is it the night or the day? Or is it the dawn and the time of Angelus? Is it the desire of light and darkness to merge within each other? Or is it the passion behind their loves, desires, and faiths that let the greatest transformation born?

I should consider that this is a calling for us to merge our different faces and bodies and spirits within and let the matrix (around our minds ) disappear. Let the heart sing and give birth to the dawn within our souls..


Leave a Comment