The Fountainhead (Ayn Rand) - Thug Notes Summary & Analysis
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 04. 2016
- Join Wisecrack! ►► bit.ly/1y8Veir
Start building your website with Squarespace! ►►wscrk.com/1MqwmzE
Use the Offer Code: THUGNOTES for 10% off your first purchase!
Follow me on Facebook to pimp out ya newsfeed! ►► wscrk.com/22WKGom
And Twitter too ►► wscrk.com/1N45SwQ
From plot debriefs to key motifs, Thug Notes’ The Fountainhead Summary & Analysis has you covered with themes, symbols, important quotes, and more.
The Fountainhead (1943)
by Ayn Rand
Get The Fountainhead here on Amazon ►► amzn.to/1MqwCOX
More Thug Notes ►► wscrk.com/1MOYCvM
Earthling Cinema ►► wscrk.com/20wCjx7
Wisecrack Edition ►►wscrk.com/1RAXn3g
8-Bit Philosophy ►► wscrk.com/1V5CQq9
Wisecrack Homepage ►► www.wisecrack.co
Get Email Alerts ►► eepurl.com/bcSRD9
Check out our Merch! ►► www.wisecrack.co/store
© 2016 Wisecrack, Inc.
"That's what the book says" Love how he had to clarify that
SA-X Artfully Dodging the #metoo movement lol
Jesus Herrera Comedy shut the fuck up
@@emmathestonedspider8676 REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
@@balloonfiesta15 Don't you mean the reeeeeeetort?
@@balloonfiesta15 REEEEEEE
WHY IS THIS NOT CONTINUING? THIS SERIES IS BRILLIANT. BRING US MORE THUGNOTES!!!!
Agreed. So many books. Like The Hellbound Heart, Doomsday Clock, The Black Phone, etc...
Arnold Schwarzenegger talks about this in a college commencement speech he gave. He hates people referring to him as a self made millionaire. He talks about all the people who helped him on his way up. It's a great speech. Arnold is a great man.
Plz bring "Thug Notes" back... "It just don't get no realer than Greg Edwards"
_"Hey_ _man,_ _you_ _ever_ _heard_ _of_ _free_ _market_ _principles,_ _nigga?"_
+Euler Characteristic _"I'm talkin about Laffer curves and QE shit my dude...rational actors shit, you fuck with that?"_
+K a p p a 7 7 7 like saying there were virgin trollop it was.
could you do thus spoke zarathustra
yessss please
yaaaas
+zev piro
Shut up Morty.
+dinosavros black Oh my god, please please please! It's my favorite work from my favorite philosopher.
baartenkaas
Dude, who the fuck are you?
I love Thug Notes. It's really thoughtful and really funny. It also illustrates a great example of "Don't Judge a Book by It's Cover"! Please keep up the good work, Mr. Edwards!
I feel like a dummy for just realizing that’s the brilliance of this channel hahaha
“That’s what the book say” I’m CRYING 😂😂😂
The book says that. I can testify.
Could you do "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream" some time?
YES
+shapaza There's nothing to analyze in that story. It's pretty simple.
there is much to analyze
I love that Priest record, 🤘🏻
+shapaza Kinda scary -- bad enough to have read it....
The Fountainhead is one of the weirdest books I've ever read. It's way more readable than Atlas Shrugged, but it's still hard to look at a lot of these individual characters and actually see people rather than mouthpieces.
When you really break it down, Ayn Rand wrote a self-insert, angsty, teenage fan-fiction
+WhiteTuxMafiaAndFilms I'd say that's not giving her enough credit and/or giving FanFic writers too much credit, but she definitely had an issue with Mary Sue-ing her characters in a way. It's not that her books aren't well written though, it's just her characters that hold the books back, and arguably her philosophy depending on how you feel about it. I would argue she could write though, she just wasn't amazing at having more complexity in her characters.
+CTCNathan The point was to use her characters to represent what she saw as very specific ideals and philosophies. So yes, the ones she considered the epitome of good are good and infallible, while those she considered are evil and irredeemable. It's highly stylized and she was a follower of the romanticist school of fiction, where characters were more representative of an idea, rather than an attempt at depicting a realistic person. While I personally prefer realism mixed with romanticism, I still think Rand did a good job, since the characters were engaging, at least to me.
+CTCNathan I mean it's hard to argue that she could physically write a book...but that is where it ends
WhiteTuxMafiaAndFilms I think she was a fine writer and not many average writers could write as much per book as she did, but had a lot of obvious problems that stops her at a certain point. You don't see many fanfics that are 500+ pages and using decently sized words, as a dumbed down example.
I'm not really a huge fan, I'm just saying she had her talents as a writer as well as her points where she was bad. What she wrote was better than 50 Shades of Grey, for example!
Fountainhead
Fountain
Fontaine
Dear god
Would you kindly?
Andrew Ryan is more or less an anagram of Ayn Rand.
congrats, you saw tho obvious
Andrew Ryan
We R Ayn Rand.
Brigid Tenenbaum -- Alisa Rosenbaum.
I don't think pity was being used to mean exactly the same thing as sympathy, in this context. Afterall, the reader is made to feel sympathy for Roark as he struggles against all odds, but you never pity Roark. You know Roark knew what he was doing and was prepared for the consequences, that he was responsible for himself win or lose. You felt sympathy, but not pity. Pity is what you feel for Keating when you see that his suffering is all caused by his lack of integrity, by his lack of conviction and his lack of courage. His suffering is all self-imposed.
Well said!
Here, here!
Amen.
Yeah, I think pity wasn't equated with sympathy here. I think what Roarke (Rand) didn't like about pity was that to pity someone also meant to look down on someone. You can't pity your equal so much as you can pity someone who has fallen so low in stature that you can't help but pity them.
Rand didn't like that pitying people implied that they no longer had any dignity left.
Pity is still virtuous though, even as the insulting and undignified version of sympathy. As long as it's implied that by seeing someone's wretchedness you are compelled to soothe it, it's therefore implied that kindness does not need to be earned. The objectivist idea of merit before all is super anti-social.
well this should be a fun comment section
I would probably recommend just not reading if my past experiences are anything to go by!
+Inkswitch the Unicorn ''Anarcho''-Capitalists just like 'Do you even Bitcoin bro?' lol
+BUBBLEGUM GUN seriously lol
>_ let's destroy hierarchies but then we have to establish one for the people_
> pretending this isn't what modern society is built on
> _hierarchy for the people_
ishygddt
Inkswitch nah fam. just a bunch of us homies liking thug notes and how it helps us pass classes
Mace yes, it is such a horrible thing to try to take down an establishment to form a new one. What good ever came from that?
That was great.. especially at the end when Sparky said "all OGs know they've been helped along the way." Cool stuff.
I've read Ayn Rand's works, and while I like her novels and some of her sentiments, I can't but help agree with your criticism at the end. We are social animals, which Rand seems to completely ignore, and it is only by cooperation that we survive. Well said sir. Good review.
+James Estrada I'm a fan of Rand and even her ideas, but I have to agree. Taken to an idealistic extreme, they ignore reality and simply wouldn't work across the whole of society. It's much like in Atlas Shrugged where she did a great job of showing what a disaster an authoritarian Socialist Utopia would be like - but then she sets up her own Objectivisit Utopia in Colorado.
You aren't just an Original Gangster. You are a Classical Gangster. Thank you for being so inspiring.
Please do Flowers for Algernon
Omg yes I love that book
6:31 Wynand's is probably the hardest characterization to grasp in the novel --- what a great summary of it!
That was the most insightful literary analysis I've ever heard.
Thanks for reminding us that generosity and compassion are virtues.
Sorry, but you missed the whole point of the book.
@@stevepayne3920 , more like that antithesis of the main point of the book
@@nazmul_khan_ Yes. That’s the point I was making. It is the antithesis.
They are weak virtues. Shallow. I always say this to people who think selfishness is bad. If people agree that people should have value, then why shouldn’t I treat myself as something valued? If you see the people you’re helping in need of generosity and compassion, why not do it to yourself? I’m still a person after all. In other words, treat yourself as though you are someone responsible for helping. If people did this, compassion would be self sufficient rather than relied upon. Because if you were in a burning building your values of compassion and generosity would be thrown out the window. Don’t fool yourself.
@@JacketsOnFire I mean, not really? Some maybe but other people have gone in to help people, even animals.
Just watched Thug Notes on "The Watchman" and honestly, Rand's story here strikes me as just about as realistic. I also find her depiction of the ideal man (rapist, arsonist) as a bit, well, less than ideal. Howard Roarke's odyssey seems a lot more like the puerile fantasies of the insufferable angry nerd in the next cubicle who fancies himself a persecuted genius, than the tale of an actual genius.
+EyeLean5280 It's not about him being a genius, it's about him sticking to himself. He could have shitty designs and still be admirable to Rand for his convictions. But yes, he is a genius, because Rand wrote him so.
+Steven Wang I suppose to her subjective standards that's well enough, but anyone can have convictions and stand to them. There's nothing special in refusing to adapt: modifications to paradigms necessary to move forward are infinitely rarer; why stubbornness and ultra-conservative (in the non-political sense) mindsets would be prized over being able to admit fault and progress when the stubborn refusal to do so is the default nature of humans when confronted is, to me, intellectually lazy. Additionally not bending to a change in climate is the furthest thing from objectivism: being able to modify standing models is exactly why science *is* objective, it's not attached to some preconceived truth and too stubborn to alter in light of new information, the way a Randian hero like Rourke very much is. In evolution it's not the one who's most resistant to change that thrives, it's the one able to change in order to be most suited to the environment. Refusal to modify for anything is, objectively, intensely stupid. Clinging to dumb convictions is even more so.
I only bring up physical sciences because Darwinian evolution is the go-to explanation for most as to why morally bankrupt behavior is acceptable under Objectivism -- doing so as a demonstration of how you can't have it both ways, that one can't use the principles of a science to suit one's needs when convenient, then disregard them when the mood strikes just because one likes the idea of thickheaded dipshits standing firm in moronic ideals out of this romantic idea that sticking to your convictions should stand above all.
Riley Vandewater In the novel, it's the others who are unwilling to adapt. e.g. the argument with the Dean early on: the Dean (and others) are so focused on the idea that others had better ideas than them, so bent on the act of copying, that they failed to adapt to changing times. Roark argues in this way:
"The famous flutings on the famous columns--what are they there for? To hide the joints in wood--when columns were made of wood, only these aren't, they're marble. The triglyphs, what are they? Wood. Wooden beams, the way they had to be laid when people began to build wooden shacks. Your Greeks took marble and they made copies of their wooden structures out of it, because others had done it that way. Then your masters of the Renaissance came along and made copies in plaster of copies in marble of copies in wood. Now here we are, making copies in steel and concrete of copies in plaster of copies in marble of copies in wood. Why?"
+Riley Vandewater - Agreed with basically everything you said EXCEPT the idea that you are criticizing Ayn Rand. You might be responding only to +Steven Wang's description, but the REASON that Roark sticks to his convictions is that he loves what he does - he approaches it as an art. So, he isn't clinging to dumb convictions, his understanding is deep, and other people's are shallow. Because he loves his art, he is open to other people's ideas, but he only incorporates ideas that are DEEPER and more profound than his. He learns from Henry Cameron, because Henry is profound. He ignores Ellsworth Toohey because Ellsworth is a hack.
So, again, you are correct - you just aren't critiquing Ayn Rand.
AynRandHero That's fair; I suppose I really wasn't critiquing her, or her work, so much as the ideology that informed her work. An ideology that opens itself to such critique by encouraging stagnation for the sake of how it makes one feel -- a key reason why I find its name so contradictory.
To critique her work, though, I'm not all too fond of characters who remain largely static and still come out on top. Especially when, as the main character, the arc is yours for the taking. While for Rourke his firmness is driven by his love for his way of creating his art above all else, and that is absolutely commendable even had he remained a failed artist, this is simply one facet of such immobility. Developing as a character and going through an arc rather than starting out as the best but misunderstood and ending up still the best just doesn't make for interesting or compelling drama. For me, from a narrative angle, it makes the story and character read as stale. That firmness stands at the core premise of her work here, such that there's a passage dedicated to making the moral of this morality play explicit, and it's one that reads as firmly anti-development with an apparent disdain for so-called growth. For that fact the message it imparts comes off as impractical idealism that's equally misguided as similar blind ideals that objectivism would stand to oppose. To me that only compounded atop my flat narrative reading as a layer of non-functional hokum the story was designed explicitly to peddle, which admittedly may have colored my perception some, and to be fair it has been some time since my reading, so I may be working from a faulty interpretation. Perhaps I'll give it another read and approach it from a more objective angle.
I'll let anyone reading decide whether that was a pun or not.
How am I seeing this now?! This is brilliant, please, more of this man describing deep philosophical books.
Just finished this book, and I gotta say that this summary is pretty much almost spot on. Great job, sir
Man I've learned so much from this channel, and especially thug notes. Keep doing what you're doing.
Kinda unrelated, but keeping it real at 4:38 reminds me of Dave Chappelle's "When keeping it real goes wrong."
Overall, this is one of the better summaries and analyses on CZcams of the Fountainhead. Nice work. I would like to point out a few things. (1) Toohey was not one of Roark's homies. Toohey hated Roark's ability and independence. Although Dominique's and Toohey's actions are similar, their motivations are far apart. (2) Pity and caring for others are not the same thing. Empathy is also a distinct thing.
I'm so glad you get this. Thank you
Their motivations at first are actually quite similar. They both want to dominate Howard: Dominique because she’s been surrounded by incompetent men all her life; the thought of not being able to dominate a man, a man with the highest standard of ability and passion no less, infuriates her. She says multiple times in part 2 that all she wants to do is dominate Howard. Ellsworth also wants to dominate Howard because he wants to extinguish the light of society potentiated by free thinking creators (fountainheads) and throw the world into darkness as a result. So they’re motivations are originally very similar, though the reasons for said motivations are in fact different
Don’t have to like someone to be they Homie. Hell your Homie can the one that shanks Yo’ Ass. A Homie or “Home Boi”, just gotta have had shared some kinda experience with you. Your Hood, your Junior High, local Boys or Girls Club. Or in my case my Bois I went to medical school with or my Residency in Internal Medicine. Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Class of 1984!
Seeing a new Thug Notes video is a wonderful feeling
i know huh
I don't think I've seen anyone request this one yet, but I would really love to see your take on John Dies at the End
I love this forum! I have never heard of many of these books before and I hope I can catch up with all of you all.
I'm definitely looking forward to making a list of good reads for the summer!
First off, love your series, I'm a big fan of your work.
Second I am going to have to respectfully disagree with your comment that Howard Roark didn't believe in helping others or respecting them as they were. It is because he respects man as an individual that he finds pity so egregious.
There were many occasions where Howard would help those he found shared ideals with. He helped Steven Mallory when he was going through his own mess and would share what little he had (after the religious museum incident) to help him out, never asking for anything in return.
What he says about pity is exactly as you read, "without respect of the man, pity is a deranged feeling". He always had respect for those who had a sense of themselves or those who fought the good fight with the daily grind. The only man who he ever showed "pity" towards was Peter Keating, near the end of the book and who, by his own definition, was a broken man who gave up everything he ever cared for in order to get higher up in a world that never cared weather he succeeded or failed in anything he did.
many people failed to see Raynd's subtle potrayal of him
Gotta shit on Rand a little bit for the weak leftist types.
Thanks for that
He's spot on. Your mistake is that you equate (for no reason) respect with helping people. This is a false equivalency, particularly so with Rand. Rand believed that any action of 'helping' a person is an action of trying to help yourself. Nothing else. She did not believe you should actually help or consider others.
@@cemarz this is a legitimate question and not meant to troll. But if that's the case then why would Roark help Keating so much throughout the novel?
Feeling _pity_ and feeling _empathy_ ain't the same thing. One stems from condescendense, the other stems from your ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes.
Jus' sayin'.
+Jayadratha Bose *Thank you*. It was on the tip of my tongue.
Yes, thankyou. I had a much more wordy explaination, but yours is way better
Bullshit. What is the basis for your claim? Condescension is not mutually inclusive with pity. Never has been.
Further, empathy and pity aren't mutually _exclusive_ either. A synonym for "pity" is "sympathy".
If you *have* empathy when you see the starving child, you will then *feel* pity/sympathy.
Wrong, you can't feel empathy for things you haven't experienced. Empathy means you can relate to what the other is going through. I've never had to live in an unstable country where people starve, so I can't empathize. I can have sympathy and pity for them without any sense of superiority though. That just sounds like some BS used to justify your lack of sympathy and pity for others.
linguistically Zedek, your claim is correct regarding dictionary definitions, and synonyms. However, in context Rand makes it clear that pity, as she defines it, is not merely empathy but contempt for someone in a bad situation (typically of their own doing). In condemning pity in objectivism, it's this contemptuous empathy that she argues against. Jayadratha Bose is correct in his assertion within the context of this work. If you desire evidence for this, it can be found inside the book, or from reading some of her other works. Regardless of you opinion of her or her views, I recommend reading some, if only for your own edification with regards to this topic. It never hurts to have more ammunition, whichever side of the proverbial fence you fall on.
Wow that was to coolest presentation of The Fountainhead I've ever heard. One of my faves
Could you do The Epic of Gilgamesh?
+Bob the Monitor
That would be awesome. Could do a whole series including the Enuma Elish, and their relationship with Genesis.
GIRUGAMESH
ask and thou shalt receive
They've done it now.
I LOVE THUG NOTES! I've waited so long for this day and you did a good video!
loved that last part ,is a good way to explain pity
I'm so happy that this channel is almost at 1 million it deserves it :)
I've been missing these lately, thanks for posting a new one.
Great video!
On that last bit, the pity mentioned was for someone irredeemable, as it says in the passage quoted. Ayn Rand was not against feeling sorry for people who deserved it or who had the potential for change (and the book makes this very clear in many parts as Roark, the ideal man, does just that) but she was specifically not speaking about such a case. People who are irredeemably bad do exist and pity for them is anything but a virtue. "Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent."
Also, Ayn Rand is not against being generous to others at all. She is actually very much in favor of generosity and her works demonstrate this with many of her best characters being very generous. She just isn't for giving the unearned or undeserved. That's all.
yeah she's probably the most largely misunderstood writer in modern literature. She was very reasonable beyond politics. I studied her stuff for a while. A good number of gems 👌
Oh yeah. One need not look further than the comments on this video to see the typical misunderstandings and misrepresentations about her ideas, not to mention the ones I mention from the end of this video.
And I adore her entire corpus, not just her political thought too.
another classic. been waiting forever for thug notes.💯
Really concise analogy, as well as entertaining as hell; kudos to you my good man.
"Roark don't flow with that mess!"
"Girl got a serious hater streak in her" Looool. 3:51 was a highlight for me, too. The whole video is just good.
It's hard to hate Ayn Rand though, cause without Atlas Shrugged, we wouldn't have Bioshock.
+Lego Insomniac that's the ONLY good thing that Rand's insanity produces.
I'm enjoying reading it just now, disagreeing with most of it, but it's a change from what I'm used to
haha yes
+Lego Insomniac We would have Bioshock, only that it would not be set in the Art Deco style world. In the early stages of development the game was meant to take place in an abandoned soviet bunker/research facility.
+Lego Insomniac I mean, that is kinda like saying without Hitler we wouldn't have Wolfenstien, therefore Hitler is difficult to hate.
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
YESS!!!
Yes.
I made a video about Fear & Loathing for 4th of July. I examined the theme of the American Dream.
I've been an Objectivist for decades now, and I can tell you Thug Notes did a largely accurate job on the summary and on some of the analysis, particularly the characters. That's pretty amazing an act of summarizing, given that this is a novel of over 600 pages. Thug Notes makes some minor errors: 1) there's nothing in the novel against helping others, and in fact Roark does help a struggling artist named Steven Mallory; 2) the pity remark was meant in the context of Peter Keating falling immensely low for all his repeated betrayals of Roark and of himself, and it's not meant to suggest that forgiveness is wrong, as they do the video; and 3) it's better to review "The Fountainhead" as its own work rather than bring in aspects of Objectivism not really covered in the "The Fountainhead." I'd say everyone should read this novel; it's a must for an especially cool life, and reading is mandatory if you're going to review it in any context.
This is one of my favorite books of all time and I thought this was a fantastic video, officially love this channel.
Love this series keep it up.
I have been wondering if there were any critics on CZcams who know what they are talking about and have a good personality. Keep it up!
Wow! That is the best summary of a book this long i have ever heard... great job!
That last part is something so many people get wrong about Rand, though it doesn't help when even people who say they agree with her get it wrong as well. That quote is saying that feeling pity for someone is doing them is disservice. True pity means that you aren't seeing them as a real person, that you're defining them by their circumstances. And that's not what you should be doing, you should always be seeing people as people, and instead of feeling sorry for someone you should get up and do something about it.
There's a bit in Atlas Shrugged where one of the heroes helps out a homeless man. You just made that part make sense. Thanks.
This had me in stitches. Great stuff!
I just finished reading The Fountainhead and i'm glad i decided to read it I can agree with the analysis of the book in the video
I accidentally bumped my mouse and clicked this. Stayed for the dude's sheer entertainment value. Subscribing cause I need more of this dude in my life.
"Roark goes hard in the paint when it comes to his integrity."
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress!
+sinecurve9999 Literally anything from Heinlein.
Cyberman King Literally!!
TANSTAAFL!!!
+Dave Holden unless u are in the economic 1st percentile or a multinational corporation based in Ireland. the free buffet is off-shore tax shelters
+DV “Eppish” Epps
You apparently dont know how taxes work.
This was FANTASTIC! This dude's voice is legit. I feel like Busta Rhymes is reading to me.
I do want to object to his understanding of "pity" though. It isn't the feeling of "feeling sorry for others." It is the feeling that you should help another, not because you see the potential in him or that you see the good he could do, but that you should help him because you don't see those things in him and without your help he is in danger.
It is different. Helping somebody down in their luck because you want them to be able to one day help themselves or another IS virtuous. Helping somebody who is entirely without admirable quality because you feel it is your societal obligation is NOT A VIRTUE.
That is what this description of "pity" is about. "Pity" is reliant on the absence of value in the one to be pitied, "Charity" is reliant on the potentiality of value in the beneficiary of the charity.
Anthem is my fav ayn rand book can you do that one next. Keep up the good work, thug out
Can you please do Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea.
Can you make a Thug Notes on the short story of "The Yellow Wallpaper" by Charlotte Perkins Gilman?
Dude. That was awesome. As someone who has read the book a dozen times and loved it, you were spot on. Thank you.
And, you missed the bit on pity. You said 8:10 that Ayn Rand suggested that "feeling sorry for others is bullshit." That isn't what she meant or what she wrote in that quote you used. She was saying that when you feel sorry for someone who is so f%$#ed up that they are hopeless and worthless, it is a sad, sad thing. You should NEVER WANT to feel that feeling. Pity is a sad, tragic feeling that we should wish never to experience - because we never want another human to be in such a sad state of self.
Similarly, Ayn Rand would not and did not say that "being generous to others is for bitches." Roark was very generous with Wynand, and Steven Mallory for that matter, and even Peter Keating. He just doesn't take his value as a person from his generosity - he takes it from his creativity. Like YOU in this video - you created something kick ass beautiful. You created something truly valuable. You ought to be truly proud of it, as I'm sure you are. Was it generous of you to make the video? Maybe, maybe not. I don't care about your generosity, but the fact that you created something great. THAT is what Ayn Rand is all about.
Peace out!
I'd love to see you do The Hunchback of Notre-Dame by Victor Hugo, and/or The Monk by Matthew Lewis, two of my favourite books.
Yes - HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME!
could you do And Then There Were None, please. I love this channel by the way
Excellent as always. I appreciate that you took the step to criticize Rand's philosophy which glorifies self interest and disdain for the helpless.
+Red Chaos You really need to actually read her books, and don't go in with preconceived notions. Her philosophy is nearly flawless, and it doesn't disdain for any group, simply for certain ideals held by some men and those individuals with a lack of them. If you can't understand her fiction (usually due to the fact that society is in many cases diametrically opposed to her opinions & it's hard to relearn what you've been taught since your youth, I'm not saying your not smart, I also originally hated her before coming at her philosophy objectively), I suggest you read her non-fiction, specifically Capitalism the Unknown Ideal.
+SturFriedBrains Her philosophy is nearly flawless? She's not even considered a philosopher by academic standards because of how poorly she argues, and misrepresents other historical thinkers. Next you'll be saying that L. Ron Hubbard has a flawless critique of psychology.
Name a rich person who makes their own food. Also, anthropology has shown that nascent societies used to hunt in packs, not as individuals. You're either American, grew up a rich kid, learnt all of your political philosophy from the internet, or all three.
Atlas shrugged is nonsensical. If every capitalist in the world isolated themselves from the working class, they would come to realize that the only skill the elite have is paying people to do things for them. All the capitalist class does is extract and appropriate surplus value from the working class that constructs and manufactures EVERYTHING.
Buying something is obviously not the same thing as actually making or providing someone. How do you think wealth is created? Do you think all wealth is determined by effort? We live in a world where you could work 100,000 hours in a clothing factory in Eritrea, and you'd make less money than a trust fund baby does in half an hour just letting his inheritance sit in his bank account, and you think it's because he's morally superior, or better, than the factory worker?
Even more abstractly, if you imagine a world of absolute equality of resources and opportunities, even then, does it necessarily follow that disabled people, or the mentally impaired, should have to suffer because the 'strongest' think that having to share a very small proportion of their resources constitutes such great imposition to their freedom?
No shame in being self-taught, many are. But I suggest you check out the following books before seriously committing to Ayn Rand's philosophy completely:
23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism by Ha Joon-Chang
Discourse on Inequality by Jean-Jacques Rousseau
And if you get a chance, read some of the debates between Rawls and Nozick's philosophy. I hate Nozick with every fibre of my being, but he's an actual philosopher, and his views are similar to Ayn Rand's, but he's exactly got some decent arguments.
Man I love this channel. Why am I just now discovering it
This. Is. Incredible. Not what I was expecting ... Totally subscribed ❤️
I'd love to hear you folks cover some Milan Kundera like "Immortality" or "The Unbearable Lightness of Being". Great episode by the way. Thumbs Up.
Just stumbled on this - great approach and graphics(!!!). You could maybe go into schools, or After School Clubs, young peeps would love this. Some serious inspirational originality.
This was brilliant. Thoroughly enjoyed it. Thank you.
The faces you chose to represent the Characters in The Fountainhead looked very similar to the way I had imagined them when I read it. Especially Dominique Franken. Ellsworth Toohey, not so much here though as I had him down as looking more like David Patrick Kelly. Great summary, thanks Thug Notes.
Great summary. And it saves us from the ordeal of reading Ayn Rand.
Why do u hate her
@@qeoo6578 Because she pushed the idea that unfettered self-interest is good and altruism is destructive. That's sociopathic.
@@StellaWaldvogel living for yourself is moral. You only have 1 life & you need to maximize it. You need to pursue your dreams
@@qeoo6578 When talking about Rand, "living for yourself" and "pursue your dreams" are euphemisms for a failed, hate-driven philosophy that renders its adherents incapable of functioning as contributing members of society, and unfit to spend time in the presence of other people.
@@StellaWaldvogel wrong. She never said for people to disregard other humans. She believed in trading with other people & she valued all human life. Do you prefer people to live for others?
Yay! I've been dying for another Thugnotes video. I would love to see more of those Boss Bitch videos, too.
Good summary and analysis:)
Great book!
Awesome man! Loved this video, especially some of the esoteric references like "in the paint"!!! Great work!!! (I bet you'd be a monster in the paint) :)
Sparky, do you personally read all the books you review? If so, you're realer than Rourke.
"We" by Yevgeny Zamaitin
this is a channel i did not know I needed. thank you :P
I’d cry if they brought this series back
William Burroughs' "Naked Lunch" perhaps?
+darnact that shit is impossible analyse XD At least not in a 10 minute video lol
Thank you for this video, intelligent and balanced as always, "all OGs know that."
bravo, my friend. you are a true humorist and very fun to listen to
Great...fabulous...very easily understood..and entertaining exegesis.
Thanks..
I borrowed Atlas Shrugged from a state funded library. I learned that Objectivists need to receive empathy and altruism more than most.
+mysterywhiteboy72 What gave you that conclusion? Most objectivist's are happy, functional people.
Great job, except for the last bit at the end. Not feeling pity for someone (of the type Rand describes) doesn't mean you can't empathize with them. Empathy seems to be what you're attempting to describe, but that's not what Rand was describing. One can empathize with and support someone without pitying them.
Best and funniest summary of the story I've ever heard.
Dude this is AWEsome! Thank You!
It's not that feeling sorry for someone is bad, it's the idea that compassion without respect is condescending. If you empathize with ones problems without respecting the person, then you are simply looking down on them.
+Eddie Marz Then it is not compassion.
+mastertheillusion Yeah, it's pity.
+Eddie Marz That's more nuance than what's actually in the book, though. There's no caveat to Rand's hatred for compassion, it was all black and white from her point of view.
+Eddie Marz Respect is earned, not just given. I think nowadays people use 'respect' instead of common courtesy. When I see a homeless man on the street I can't exactly respect them because I don't know them. But can't disrespect them either. But still will give them change, because, well. Why not? Perhaps I can respect the fact that they're not too proud to ask for help. But at the time I won't think that. Maybe it's condescending because I am feeling sorry or pitying them, but if it helps them, even a little. Doesn't the ends justifies the reason?
Ben Agar one thing I've learned is the ends never justify the means
You guys need to do Steppenwolf by Hesse
Nice balanced review and critique, well done.
You don't t know how much i miss this form of content.
Just finished this a little less than a month ago. Fantastic read. Wonderful philosophy. Highly underrated.
I read Ayn Rand when I was young. I wish I had the time back.
Great summary and analysis! Subbed
Welcome back. Missed your vids.
Do more Vonnegut! Cat's Cradle to be exact, it's my favorite book by him :)
Would love to see your take on 'Sir Gawain and the Green Knight', love y'all.
wow. you nailed it. I read the book a bunch of times.
This is the most unique book review I have ever seen, and I fucking LOVE it. You, dude, are beautiful.
Do "Confederacy of dunces" next, do it! Come on do it!
Dima Conn love that book!!
Pity is dehumanizing, especially in the context that you were quoting, because Roarke was saying of Peter, "It's just so *sad* that this man, who could've made something of himself, chose instead to sell himself off, piece by piece.." What a querulous little worm he is, however, and it must be said that Peter was the product of his choices, and Roarke was right to judge him that way.
Excellent Analysis of a very good book.
Great channel guys!!