riskyhomo/ayn_rand · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 169
projection of an ideal man. The portrayal of a moral ideal, as my ultimate
literary goal, as an end in itself--to which any didactic, intellectual or
philosophical values contained in a novel are only the means.
"Let me stress this: my purpose is not the philosophical enlightenment of my
readers...My purpose, first cause and prime mover is the portrayal of Howard
Roark [or the heroes of Atlas Shrugged} as an end in himself...
"I write--and read--for the sake of the story...My basic test for any story is:
’Would I want to meet these characters and observe these events in real life? Is
this story an experience worth living through for its own sake? Is the pleasure
of contemplating these characters an end in itself?’...
"Since my purpose is the presentation of an ideal man, I had to define and
present the conditions which make him possible and which his existence requires.
Since man’s character is the product of his premises, I had to define and
present the kinds of premises and values that create the character of an ideal
man and motivate his actions; which means that I had to define and present a
rational code of ethics. Since man acts among and deals with other men, I had to
present the kind of social system that makes it possible for ideal men to exist
and to function--a free, productive, rational system which demands and rewards
the best in every man, and which is, obviously, laissez-faire capitalism.
"But neither politics nor ethics nor philosophy is an end in itself, neither in
life nor in literature. Only Man is an end in himself."
Are there any substantial changes I would want to make in The Fountainhead?
No--and, therefore, I have left its text untouched. I want it to stand as it was
written. But there is one minor error and one possibly misleading sentence which
I should like to clarify, so I shall mention them here.
The error is semantic: the use of the word "egotist" in Roark’s courtroom
speech, while actually the word should have been "egoist." The error was caused
by my reliance on a dictionary which gave such misleading definitions of these
two words that "egotist" seemed closer to the meaning I intended (Webster’s
Daily Use Dictionary, 1933). (Modern philosophers, however, are guiltier than
lexicographers in regard to these two terms.)
The possibly misleading sentence is in Roark’s speech: "From this simplest
necessity to the highest religious abstraction, from the wheel to the
skyscraper, everything we are and everything we have comes from a single
attribute of man--the function of his reasoning mind."
This could be misinterpreted to mean an endorsement of religion or religious
ideas. I remember hesitating over that sentence, when I wrote it, and deciding
that Roark’s and my atheism, as well as the overall spirit of the book, were so
clearly established that no one would misunderstand it, particularly since I
said that religious abstractions are the product of man’s mind, not of
supernatural revelation.
But an issue of this sort should not be left to implications. What I was
referring to was not religion as such, but a special category of abstractions,
the most exalted one, which, for centuries, had been the near-monopoly of
religion: ethics--not the particular content of religious ethics, but the
3

abstraction "ethics," the realm of values, man’s code of good and evil, with the
emotional connotations of height, uplift, nobility, reverence, grandeur, which
pertain to the realm of man’s values, but which religion has arrogated to
itself.
The same meaning and considerations were intended and are applicable to another
passage of the book, a brief dialogue between Roark and Hopton Stoddard, which
may be misunderstood if taken out of context:
"’You’re a profoundly religious man, Mr. Roark--in your own way. I can see that
in your buildings.’
"’That’s true,’ said Roark."
In the context of that scene, however, the meaning is clear: it is Roark’s
profound dedication to values, to the highest and best, to the ideal, that
Stoddard is referring to (see his explanation of the nature of the proposed
temple). The erection of the Stoddard Temple and the subsequent trial state the
issue explicitly.
This leads me to a wider issue which is involved in every line of The
Fountainhead and which has to be understood if one wants to understand the
causes of its lasting appeal.
Religion’s monopoly in the field of ethics has made it extremely difficult to
communicate the emotional meaning and connotations of a rational view of life.
Just as religion has preempted the field of ethics, turning morality against
man, so it has usurped the highest moral concepts of our language, placing them
outside this earth and beyond man’s reach. "Exaltation" is usually taken to mean
an emotional state evoked by contemplating the supernatural. "Worship" means the
emotional experience of loyalty and dedication to something higher than man.
"Reverence" means the emotion of a sacred respect, to be experienced on one’s
knees. "Sacred" means superior to and not-to-be-touched-by any concerns of man
or of this earth. Etc.
But such concepts do name actual emotions, even though no supernatural dimension
exists; and these emotions are experienced as uplifting or ennobling, without
the self-abasement required by religious definitions. What, then, is their
source or referent in reality? It is the entire emotional realm of man’s
dedication to a moral ideal. Yet apart from the man-degrading aspects introduced
by religion, that emotional realm is left unidentified, without concepts, words
or recognition.
It is this highest level of man’s emotions that has to be redeemed from the murk
of mysticism and redirected at its proper object: man.
It is in this sense, with this meaning and intention, that I would identify the
sense of life dramatized in The Fountainhead as man-worship.
It is an emotion that a few--a very few--men experience consistently; some men
experience it in rare, single sparks that flash and die without consequences;
some do not know what I am talking about; some do and spend their lives as
frantically virulent spark-extinguishers.
Do not confuse "man-worship" with the many attempts, not to emancipate morality
from religion and bring it into the realm of reason, but to substitute a secular
meaning for the worst, the most profoundly irrational elements of religion. For
instance, there are all the variants of modern collectivism (communist, fascist,
Nazi, etc.), which preserve the religious-altruist ethics in full and merely
4

substitute "society" for God as the beneficiary of man’s self-immolation. There
are the various schools of modern philosophy which, rejecting the law of
identity, proclaim that reality is an indeterminate flux ruled by miracles and

projection of an ideal man. The portrayal of a moral ideal, as my ultimate

literary goal, as an end in itself--to which any didactic, intellectual or

philosophical values contained in a novel are only the means.

"Let me stress this: my purpose is not the philosophical enlightenment of my

readers...My purpose, first cause and prime mover is the portrayal of Howard

Roark [or the heroes of Atlas Shrugged} as an end in himself...

"I write--and read--for the sake of the story...My basic test for any story is:

’Would I want to meet these characters and observe these events in real life? Is

this story an experience worth living through for its own sake? Is the pleasure

of contemplating these characters an end in itself?’...

"Since my purpose is the presentation of an ideal man, I had to define and

present the conditions which make him possible and which his existence requires.

Since man’s character is the product of his premises, I had to define and

present the kinds of premises and values that create the character of an ideal

man and motivate his actions; which means that I had to define and present a

rational code of ethics. Since man acts among and deals with other men, I had to

present the kind of social system that makes it possible for ideal men to exist

and to function--a free, productive, rational system which demands and rewards

the best in every man, and which is, obviously, laissez-faire capitalism.

"But neither politics nor ethics nor philosophy is an end in itself, neither in

life nor in literature. Only Man is an end in himself."

Are there any substantial changes I would want to make in The Fountainhead?

No--and, therefore, I have left its text untouched. I want it to stand as it was

written. But there is one minor error and one possibly misleading sentence which

I should like to clarify, so I shall mention them here.

The error is semantic: the use of the word "egotist" in Roark’s courtroom

speech, while actually the word should have been "egoist." The error was caused

by my reliance on a dictionary which gave such misleading definitions of these

two words that "egotist" seemed closer to the meaning I intended (Webster’s

Daily Use Dictionary, 1933). (Modern philosophers, however, are guiltier than

lexicographers in regard to these two terms.)

The possibly misleading sentence is in Roark’s speech: "From this simplest

necessity to the highest religious abstraction, from the wheel to the

skyscraper, everything we are and everything we have comes from a single

attribute of man--the function of his reasoning mind."

This could be misinterpreted to mean an endorsement of religion or religious

ideas. I remember hesitating over that sentence, when I wrote it, and deciding

that Roark’s and my atheism, as well as the overall spirit of the book, were so

clearly established that no one would misunderstand it, particularly since I

said that religious abstractions are the product of man’s mind, not of

supernatural revelation.

But an issue of this sort should not be left to implications. What I was

referring to was not religion as such, but a special category of abstractions,

the most exalted one, which, for centuries, had been the near-monopoly of

religion: ethics--not the particular content of religious ethics, but the

3

abstraction "ethics," the realm of values, man’s code of good and evil, with the

emotional connotations of height, uplift, nobility, reverence, grandeur, which

pertain to the realm of man’s values, but which religion has arrogated to

itself.

The same meaning and considerations were intended and are applicable to another

passage of the book, a brief dialogue between Roark and Hopton Stoddard, which

may be misunderstood if taken out of context:

"’You’re a profoundly religious man, Mr. Roark--in your own way. I can see that

in your buildings.’

"’That’s true,’ said Roark."

In the context of that scene, however, the meaning is clear: it is Roark’s

profound dedication to values, to the highest and best, to the ideal, that

Stoddard is referring to (see his explanation of the nature of the proposed

temple). The erection of the Stoddard Temple and the subsequent trial state the

issue explicitly.

This leads me to a wider issue which is involved in every line of The

Fountainhead and which has to be understood if one wants to understand the

causes of its lasting appeal.

Religion’s monopoly in the field of ethics has made it extremely difficult to

communicate the emotional meaning and connotations of a rational view of life.

Just as religion has preempted the field of ethics, turning morality against

man, so it has usurped the highest moral concepts of our language, placing them

outside this earth and beyond man’s reach. "Exaltation" is usually taken to mean

an emotional state evoked by contemplating the supernatural. "Worship" means the

emotional experience of loyalty and dedication to something higher than man.

"Reverence" means the emotion of a sacred respect, to be experienced on one’s

knees. "Sacred" means superior to and not-to-be-touched-by any concerns of man

or of this earth. Etc.

But such concepts do name actual emotions, even though no supernatural dimension

exists; and these emotions are experienced as uplifting or ennobling, without

the self-abasement required by religious definitions. What, then, is their

source or referent in reality? It is the entire emotional realm of man’s

dedication to a moral ideal. Yet apart from the man-degrading aspects introduced

by religion, that emotional realm is left unidentified, without concepts, words

or recognition.

It is this highest level of man’s emotions that has to be redeemed from the murk

of mysticism and redirected at its proper object: man.

It is in this sense, with this meaning and intention, that I would identify the

sense of life dramatized in The Fountainhead as man-worship.

It is an emotion that a few--a very few--men experience consistently; some men

experience it in rare, single sparks that flash and die without consequences;

some do not know what I am talking about; some do and spend their lives as

frantically virulent spark-extinguishers.

Do not confuse "man-worship" with the many attempts, not to emancipate morality

from religion and bring it into the realm of reason, but to substitute a secular

meaning for the worst, the most profoundly irrational elements of religion. For

instance, there are all the variants of modern collectivism (communist, fascist,

Nazi, etc.), which preserve the religious-altruist ethics in full and merely

4

substitute "society" for God as the beneficiary of man’s self-immolation. There

are the various schools of modern philosophy which, rejecting the law of

identity, proclaim that reality is an indeterminate flux ruled by miracles and