The Fountainhead

[shadow_chimera]

I've almost finished this book. I found I was only able to enjoy it though a psychological perspective. The main characters make perfect examples of major disorders. The most obvious being the protagonist, who seems to be a textbook case of Anti-Social Personality Disorder (often called "sociopathy").  However, many of the other main characters

Comments

[creogaudium]

Roark is absolutely a sociopath. But as fucked up as this sounds, I feel like he's the good kind. Unlike the more notorious sort of sociopath, he doesn't attempt to really damage people (aside from making them uncomfortable). And he also doesn't feel pain from his disorder. Rand compares him to a god because he's untouchable. I'd sort of like to be like that. Alas, I am human and have weaknesses.

Thanks for the name of the noodles, btw. I haven't bought them yet, but I plan to.

[shadow_chimera]

There really isn't a "good kind". Though he doesn't try to hurt anyone, he never thinks about anyone but himself. This will always leave pain in someone's wake. The only reason he doesn't damage others is because the book is fiction. If someone was to actually go through life with such disregard for others, then there would be damage to others eventually. Anti-Social Personality Disorder is a disorder that doesn't cause distress to the patient. A disorder mucst cause: “clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning" In the case of ASP disorder, it's the latter area, as in the real world, behaving without consideration to others causes impairment in social and occupational functioning and is the reason most sociopaths don't live very long

[creogaudium]

...yeah, I got that vibe about Rand. And that her characters were leading charmed lives. Fountainhead is basically a fairytale, I accept that.

But I have no off switch for caring, and that bothers me. I'd rather exist in a state where I felt no pain, but knew enough not to cause any either. Roark seems to know enough about that...the extent of harm he causes is limited to how much people try to throw themselves against his semi-benign will.

[shadow_chimera]

I don't think most people have an off switch for caring. Instead, it's up to us to weigh those cares and considerations of what others want against what we want and try to come up with what will be the best choice for us. If I wanted to, I could just use people to get what I want, but that would isolate me from others and in the end cause me unhappiness and pain. I could give into everything people wanted but that would lose me respect and in the end cause me unhappiness and pain. I feel that everyone must find their "middle road". For some it's closer to selfishness, for others selflessness, but it's important for people to not go completely to either side. To not be uncaring about anything others want, feel or say (sociopathy) but to also not be governed by others (leading to dependency, depression, or crippling anxiety

[snugbug42]

i've yet to pick up Rand, as i've heard such mixed but strong reviews, and it's long (i usually only pick up books 500+ pages if i'm sure its worth it). But i'm not much picky about what's being said, so long as it's been said well, so do you think it's worth it?

[guardian852]

"I'm unable to enjoy such a one-sided argument for a philosophy that frankly disgusts me (Objectivism)"

Good for you! That's a great and perhaps the only real way to enjoy books that don't directly relate to your life, or flat-out oppose it.

I can now smile at Rand because I mentioned her name to my philosophy professor, who I respect to death. He said that her worldview doesn't even count as a philosophy among most scholars or philosophers. His direct words were something like "just being a bitch doesn't make you a philosopher".

But as someone who hasn't read The Fountainhead, I'm quite envious of your ability to read and enjoy it on your own terms. Perhaps one day I'll be so lucky.

[shadow_chimera]

I worried that reading it like that was somehow bad. I knew that wasn't how the author intended it to be read, but though I could have a great conversation or read an essay focused on Objectivism, reading a 500+ page manifesto to it proved to be only tolerable through focusing on other aspects of it. So I'm happy that you think that my unorthodox methods weren't bad.

[guardian852]

They certainly weren't!