Roark’s and Glalt’s of real life.
Roark’s and Glalt’s of real life.
The point I’m trying to make is – Ayn Rand is the
greatest philosopher by far and shows the best possible meaning to a Human Life. But whatever characters she potrayed were to extreme and so was her definition of Objectivisim.
Let me give you a list of few Heros (my personal list of Prime
Movers), all of them are objectivist but none is in all the senses
as defined by Rand.
This is a small list, comprising of a few names whom I can recollect at this moment.
1. E Sreedharan, the man behind Konakan Railway and Delhi Metro.
Read more about him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Sreedharan
Now he is a prime mover, but if we goto Rand’s definition- He is no
objectivist as he works for a Goverment Enterprise.
2. Dhirubhai Ambani, started from gutters built a mega empire. No
Indian needs an introduction for him. He is the one most near to
Rand’s characters. Now, if you look into his personal life and way
he did business you’ll find many loopholes which drift him away for
being a perfect life as per Rand.
3. Thomas Alva Edison, he doesn’t need an introduction. Just give
the reason why he isn’t a true Objectivist as per Ayn Rand. He believed in god. Though he had a different name for it, he called it supreme power.
4. Henry Ford, again needs no introduction, he had a failure in initial days, he founded an Automobile company with someone’s finance and has to shut it down as it didn’t suceed, the reason was infrior build quality. Now a
Rand’s character iss always perfect, even if Roark made a mistake
once in designing Enright House, he went ahead took the blame
demolished and redesigned. But with Henry Ford it was different, he
failed to shell out cars of superior quality at one point of time.
Another mistake which Henry Ford made was to leave his company to
his only son a who was second hander.
5. Steve Jobs, he was a hippy at one point of time and also did
drugs. No way possible for an ideal Rand’s character.
6. Thomas John Watson (IBM Man), for similar reasons as Dhirubhai
Ambani he can’t be called as an pure objectivist, he was actively
involved in Politics and did use a lot of political manipulations to
make his company profit.
A lot more names can be added to list.
To end this post – “Each man to his own.” Ayn Rand.
Saturday, May 31, 2008 at 8:33 am
Right..the list can go on..
Just because You and I have not seen Roark doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist..and another thing: Even if he didn’t exist till today, I don’t care! Do you care if someone like him existed or not? Do you need a living proof?
I would like to see your name there..
But your post made me think about a very important thing: you talked about Steve Jobs..when did he have drugs? We can discuss this after your reply.. I have great tools to bore you
Saturday, May 31, 2008 at 6:48 pm
@ Sushmita
I don’t care if a real Roark existed or not. His mere existence in the book keeps me up. Whenever I’m down and screwed I pick up Fountainhead and read a few of my fav scenes that works like an LSD for me, and makes me going.
The people like Henry Ford, Thomas Elva Edison, E Shreedharan exist and this is what keeps the world moving.
Again back to square one, Roark is Ideal for me, a thousand bows to Ayn Rand for creating him. I’ll look up to him in my moments of despair.
To quote Ayn Rand once more – ‘Art is a projection of ideal as per artists own metaphysical values’.
Thanks for wanting me to be a Roark, but I already have done enough mistakes to be one.
I don’t want objectivism to become a religion with blind followers.
Steve Jobs and drugs to be discussed on Orkut.