Skip to content →

Tag: Liberty

Free Speech: The Great India Debate

Free speech, censorship, and the fanatical reactions – during last few years, these co-related issues have been spread quite aggressively by the interested junta over the entire country and even the whole word, in general. There are mainly three parties involved, to be precise, which have shown a great deal of enthusiasm. First, who gave the spark for this issue by the self-generated customized exaggerations, by the name of free speech, liberty, art, literature, awareness, objectivism, and so on. Second party broadly dealt with all such people and organizations who have supposedly (self-acclaimed) got the responsibility to preserve the purity, integrity, conservancy, and righteousness of some philosophy, belief, tradition, and religion which have never had given proprietorship and caretaking rights to anyone. Third party has always constituted significantly those people from elite, intellectual, laureate, and distinguished classes who show middle-fingered attitude for all other issues except those which coherently don’t need their intervention. The core stuff, which keep all three parties rotating on the virtual orbit fanatically one after another, nevertheless wonders and feels pity about its existence precisely because it doesn’t require involvement of any of them.

Calvin on Freedom of Eexpression

Nude paintings of Hindu goddesses by Madhuri Fida Hussein, Calling “Allah” names by Ms. Nasreen, exclusive comments of Karunanidhi over Lord Ram, and so on. These free expressions get followed by the so-called saviour authorities (read, morons) in no time and then, the game starts with several reactions, like violence, riots, fatwas, multidimensional shouting, banning, eliminations, exiles, moral policing, and so many other things. The great India debate, then, gets initiated by media, gurus, religious bigots, politically baptized intellectuals, elite class, and other socially charged people. Some support free speech, some religious interests. Some refutes some; others attack this, rest cry out for the sake of god-knows-what. “Aam junta” get irritated by this cliché and find nothing quite interesting in all this melodrama which further leads to the wastage of all the efforts put by all three parties. This is not the ignorance of general public, rather this is such obvious that even Manmohan Desaai would have discontinued iterating his formulas by this utter obviousness. The continuous cyclic process of sudden rise and sudden fall, however, don’t affect these bigots because the centuries of dependency has made India full of idle juntas, bigots, morons, and Karats. This is still okay, but boss why are you disturbing the life of common men and daily chores of the nation? Will they ever stop with this? Gibberish is gibberish just like “A is A”, doesn’t matter whatsoever way you use, duh!

I strongly support free speech, freedom of expression, right to speak as a fundamental right, and all such related stuffs. I would appreciate every step that is taken for the advancement of the liberty of the man and the mankind. What else a man can give to the mankind but the growth and to make the earth a better place to live? What is the essence of the existence of a living entity if it is not free? This has to make an axiom, a rule, and a fundamental right – a right of man to be free, beyond any boundaries and not captured by any limitations. A man is free to believe in anything and a man is free to refute to be controlled by any belief. A man is free without violating another man’s right to be free.

Friedrich Nietzsche has mockingly described man into his book Thus Spake Zarathustra and that sarcasm is very much relevant while understanding the essence of man’s existence. He writes:

Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman–a rope over an abyss. A dangerous crossing, a dangerous wayfaring, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous trembling and halting. What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal: what is lovable in man is that he is an OVER-GOING and a DOWN-GOING.

Man is surely not a rope if a man celebrates its existence and the reasons behind it. A man celebrates it because the existence has a ration and its sheer joy explicitly ejaculates the joy to be free.

The right of freedom for a man also gives him a duty to make sure that this right is not being violated by his free acts and every man is celebrating with joy that he’s free. The natural law identifies the condition that a man has to be alive to get the privilege of being free and the social law identifies the condition in which an individual has the ability to act according to his or her own will. And this has to be rephrased every time the man synchronizes its existence with the nature and the society. The “liberty” will be a most accurate word here which perpetuates this right. Liberty is a rational approach to attain freedom for an individual yet retaining freedom for every individual.

When the individual freedom decides to connect to the collective freedom, it should be weighed with the fundamental rights of the (collective) liberty! And when it crosses the gate, it needs to be verified and that is not the censoring, rather the regulation and moderation. This regulation ensures that all individuals are attaining this right freely and equally. That is why a man is not a bridge – neither for a superman nor for a man himself.

We are individuals and we have attained some fundamental rights, one of them is the right of freedom. We live in a collective society and the society, as an entity, also holds some individual rights. Hence, we ought to take care of some duties and responsibilities. Social imaginaries and beliefs are deeply rooted in the society. If you say you don’t care about the collective entities, such as the society, then your imaginary and consequences of your free ideas also shouldn’t be reflected to the society. Keep the society unaffected! But if you don’t want this and you let your ideas be floated free in the environment for whosoever picks it, the social imaginaries get connected with your ideas at that very time. And at that time, you get plugged onto the duties and collective responsibilities. If you know about the freedom, you also know the ranges and limitations of your free ideas. Freedom is a concept and a concept always holds some fundamental ideas that are meant to serve the collective liberty. Ever heard of liberty, by the by? Bah!

I am no way supporting or defending, either, any of the three parties. But I get pissed off up and again, every time this nonsense screws up the common man’s right of freedom. And I feel like throwing out the first two parties from the earth sooner than later, even out of the gravitational circumference. These two parties constitute one, who inaugurates the free speech show and another, who cries out loud for the violation for its bleh freedom and henceforth celebrates its freedom by sucking out freedom of much many citizens. The irritation gets just increased when all three parties declare their leadership and authorizing responsibilities, whereas the matter of fact is that all of them are simply the morons-in-disguise.

I mean, who gave you freedom to keep abusing people and keeping the police busy with those who got abused? I mean, why we need law and order when somewhere we are the reason behind breaking the peace. Ideas of “liberty” should also be considered, for sake of itself. Freedom of speech is okay, but when that speech is not bringing any positive/progressive thing as a return and you already know that it will have adverse effects, then those speeches should be avoided and at least, should not be justified by the plea of freedom of speech. If you only need to get rid of the frustration inside you, please do it in isolation and bless everyone else. That’s why I prefer rationality, it bloody solves every problem. Take a rational approach and enjoy freedom of speech!

I am not defending those who are against this. And all of recent examples were not equal to those early transformers who had to go against traditional beliefs, ideologies, and societies. Suppose, I quoted “Allah” a moron, what difference did I bring to me or the surrounding or the society? What kind of significant change did I initiate by saying this? I don’t support this kind of free speech which is not based on rational values and which could be synonymous to irrational statement (sort of abuse which could have been avoided) just for the sake for personal bias, self-satisfaction, and free speech. Drawing nude paintings of goddesses or abusing gods – how rational is this? Didn’t they know that it can bring so much of conundrum and tension to the society? I am asking the same question here – Why do people speak, speak up or speak out?

What is more important – free to speak anything or social peace and harmony ? The freedom which can be irrational as well and when A knows that B will beat him up when abused. Its very much okay that Tasleema wants to put her experiences or stuffs about the part of her life when she suffered from Islam. She should, she must! But why abuse Prophet or Islam? Isn’t she generalizing the largest picture in consideration where she actually had to pick that part which was reason behind her suffering? Is this freedom is justified when it is already clear that it is destined to disturb the peace? Whether Ram or setu existed or not, it was the issue related to that bridge (setu). What was the need to comment on Ram and someone’s faith? Should freedom of speech come at the cost of the peace? Shouldn’t Karunadhi have proposed to investigate the truth behind the bridge et al by the help of archeology, history, or geology? Why did the mythology come in the picture, that too, from the person who had to be concerned with the justified solution, rather than being skeptic, biased, or so. Or MF Hussain is perfectly okay with the nude paintings of Hindu goddesses? Or is Mr Raj Thakarey justified by saying “there is a need to throw out north Indians from Maharashtra by pulling their ears”? These all are demonstration of the right to speech. The bottom line is – Speak anything or peace and harmony?

Free Speech

Okay, we accept that our society has mistakenly nurtured some retards. But who gave these moronic organizations and religious bigots the authority and responsibility to start mental asylum saloons and procurement centers! A philosophy, belief, tradition, or a religion decides its righteousness by its own existence and they are not fragile enough that they ever need to assign proprietorship and caretaking rights to anybody else. You gotta believe or believe not, but thy can never decide its range, righteousness, integrity, and all such things. And yes, ya all religious and political idiots, don’t poke your stiff heads for its conservancy and mind your own business, conservancy, and stuffs! Who the hell are you to decide that which thing offends me?

Religions are not so weak that they need somebody else to be assigned exclusively to protect it or whatsoever; rather they are tolerant enough to forgive all these idiotic stuffs. Neither Tasleema nor Bukhari is authority on Islam. Everybody knows that, including those who initiate such issues and transform them into a drama. Basically we all know that they are the politicians and all these drama is precisely politically baptized. There is one very important thing that Indian politicians learned from British Raj – Divide and rule. Politicians have divided the society on several things – religion, caste, region, culture, language, economy, and so on. And this is the only reason behind all the drama and violence happened in the country during last 6 decades. For the historical and contemporary references, refer to chapter#6 (Our culture, their culture) of The Argumentative Indian, Amartya Sen has elaborated it further here.

Why should Tasleema Nasrin exist? Why should Bukhari/Togadia and all these bloody politicians? Why this type of media? They all are the reason behind this fiery and warfare. Collective approach, which has got a root in general public and the public has always appreciated it, is not understandable by these social messiahs. And more than that, the high-time hypocrisy of Indian politicians take all the bites all the time.

That’s why my dear ignoranus and elite fellas, the authorities are recruited to moderate all such things and the laws have been built to enable moderation of irresponsible showdown of speeches and the pro-active reactions of bigots and morons. This is another topic that who will decide the limits and how rational it has to be. But, moral policing is a different thing and the authorities (which are somehow recruited by the public itself) are not supposed to decide it by their own will. Sometimes it happens, but well, there are some flaws of democracy and it also needs some change, but that is an off-topic. We all rational Indians know that who are irrationals, fanatics, and lunatics. We all will be agreeing that political, religious or regional fanatics need the maximum possible regulations. And this thing can be achieved by the people only, who recruit the right authority by using democracy, law, et al. Those people who are sitting in one chamber and deciding on behalf of us are chosen by us, they are given the authority by us. But here, every idle intellectual mind think that they are better intellect than those fellows, only that they chose not to become a Bureaucrat. And that’s what every fanatic and abuser of the right to freedom think and that’s why these kinds of drama occur in the society. Neither Tasleemas stop abusing Allah nor Imaams stop declaring Fatwas. Neither Hussains stop drawing nude paintings of goddesses nor BHPs stop creating warfare in the society. And each of them thinks that they are better than authorities and since authorities are moron and not taking the corrective actions so they are entitled to this. And this gets continues

I am a very big supporter of free speech and believe that no limitations exist for rational individuals, mind it – rational individual. But I am no way a supporter of these kinds of free speech. I believe that laws should exist and someone (maybe I if I become someday entitled) has to regulate this and make sure that it is being maintained and rest of the people help those who are taking care of laws, liberty, collective rights and peace, and so on. I have several ways to express myself and use my right to free speech and most of those ways will not be violating collective liberty and the peace. I also bloody know that what offends me, ain’t I? I have enough minds to think and decide that which thing hampers my beliefs and the symbols and I can no way let other decide it for me. I am a Hindu because of Vedas, Geeta, Hinduism ideologies, Hindu Gods, and my religious heritage; not because of the RSS, VHP, et al. Thy have no relation to validate, authorize, or protect my, or for that matter every Hindu, decision. My neighbor is Islam because of Prophet and philosophies of Islam and he just doesn’t care about all the Imams and Maulanas. We can take care of it, you stay away!

Democracy Is Better Without Free Speech

Images Courtesy:,,


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