A Pebble's Thoughts on Another Fountain

He had always wanted to write music, and he could give no other identity to the thing he sought. If you want to know what it is, he told himself, listen to the first phrases of Tchaikovsky's First Concerto -or the last movement of Rachmaninoff's Second. Men have not found the words for it nor the deed nor the thought, but they have found the music. Let me see that in one single act of man on earth. Let me see it made real. Let me see the answer to the promise of that music. Not servants nore those served; not altars and immolations; but the final, the fulfilled, innocent of pain. Don't help me or serve me, but let me see it once, because I need it. Don't work for my happiness, my brothers -show me yours -show me that it is possible -show me your achievement -and the knowledge will give me courage for mine.
~Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead

Okay. So since I have not gone to work a single day this week, know from now that I cannot help writing about esoteric subjects and compiling what I feel are ethereal photo collages -you'll have to forgive both. Also, you don't have to have read it to read about it below (don't worry, I make it understandable after the first paragraph so please don't let it scare you away).

I must say to you this (if I have not ever hinted at it before): Ayn Rand is a genius. Really and truly. You don't have to agree with her fully (and I don't) to appreciate her artistic literary abilities and her philosophical insights into the only world she must have known. I'd already read Atlas Shrugged -in some ways, I did like it more than The Fountainhead... makes sense I suppose, since the former was the culminatory apex of her philosophy in the form of a novel (and who could not love Dagny Taggart more than Dominique Francon? But I do prefer Howard Roark to Hank Rearden or Francisco D'Anconia or even John Galt... but in a sense, he's essentially The Fountainhead's Dagny... or maybe it was John Galt, or a combination of both?). So in some ways, her weakness lies in the formulaic nature of her novels (at least when we compare these two), but imagine finding someone's work formulaic, but loving it anyway?

I'm sorry, how rude of me -I should explain a bit of Rand's philosophy here. It's called Objectivism and is an idealized form of individualism, capitalism, within a framework of integrity, meritocracy and love for reason, and the life lived passionately, dedicated to producing only the highest expression of purposeful action that embodies the spirit of man. The ideal man is the dynamic man who truly loves himself, regardless of what the world around him thinks or tries to do to him (in an awe-inspiring and genuine way, not a false self-love, like the insecurity of conceit) and inspite of all that. Rand's heroes retain a moral purity in this respect, and flawlessly demonstrate the human capacity to produce stunning works of genius (in any sphere of life), but also grapple with their own existential struggles, hopes and dreams thwarted, victims of a kind of moral social injustice that is not meritocratic.

Her philosophy is atheistic and very contemptuous of 'humanitarianism' and the idea of 'serving others' / altruism -but only, I think, within the context of an understanding of these that make them abhorrent to me too. The premise of these ideological adversaries is 1) that there's no such thing as humanitarianism and altruism, so if people claim them, then it is corrupt and full of a hatred of man and contempt of self; 2) that there is no God because the Judeo-Christian God makes sinners of men rather than supporting their potential for productive excellence, thus making them self-hating right from the get-go. See? You'd make 'em your enemies too.

But I would disagree. Well, maybe not about the altruism (I agree that there is no such thing, because even if all you get is satisfaction, well, you're still getting that much, which is a whole lot more than nothing).

Humanitarianism in the way that I understand it, and the way that the Aga Khan embodies it (in the most idealized way, in my opinion), it is not with a corrupt ulterior goal of "power over all men", but actually recognizing that by improving the lot of other people (who may have done nothing to deserve it, even if the idea of 'deserving' is rather judgmental, and I guess Ms. Rand and I part ways on the issue of whether or not it's our place to judge) by providing certain educational, economic and health opportunities, we are in fact trying to help transform this actual, current, real world into Rand's meritocratic kind of Utopia. The difference is that Rand says pure individualism and selfishness (granted, her definition of 'selfishness' is more a sense of unshakable self-respect and honest self-interest, but which, unfortunately, we see rarely manifested in reality) will result in automatic cooperation and an ideal, higher order society. Sounds rather Adam Smith to me. The ideal is really the excellence though. And there are ways to get there practically without assuming that the low, and the poor of spirit deserve to rot in their misery, while the enlightened few create and inhabit some kind of Earthly Eden (except the inhabitants could regularly eat from the Tree of Knowledge). So I disagree with the underlying cynicism that people cannot change -if given the right social and environmental conditions, spiritual and intellectual nurturing, I ask, who wouldn't be transformed with that kind of awakening?

And also, belief in God, or awe of Nature or the Universe, does not translate to self-abasement, contempt, feeling like a meaningless nothing... i.e. you can still appreciate that "I am physically small with respect to the world around me, but I have the capacity to do so much, and have it mean something, or do something, or serve some function or another, and understand what I produce completely, even if it's not in the magnitude of quasars, supernovas or making oceans, because I'll honour those things by trying to make use of them, and give them meaning, at the very least!"

It also doesn't necessarily mean that we have an Eve-complex about taking a bite from the Tree of Knowledge... personally, I think she was the smart one to do it first, and God being God knew that they would, and God being all-loving, most likely loved his own creation even more for it (why would he make such a big deal out of creating a mere stupid, senseless, non-intellectually curious thing... makes no sense at all to me -our whole purpose in life is to take as many bites as possible of the blessed fruit from that sacred Tree) -and I won't apologize for my perspective here at all. And it's fully in line with the Ismaili intellectual tradition (if you doubt it, read Abu Ya'qub Al-Sijistani: Intellectual Missionary by Paul E. Walker -yes, it's an IIS book).

Well, there you go... read her anyway though. She makes one contemplate these things. And isn't that some wonderous genius in itself?