And I shall smitest thee.

It is finished. I have conquered the beast - it lies slain upon my desk before me as I trumpet my victory to you, my fellow collegians (def. "a college student or recent college graduate").

My prey: Ayn Rand's 700-page journey through the cracks and crevasses of her somewhat confusing objectivist philosophy in the title, The Fountainhead. Rand, an ardent atheist and capitalist writes her story through one hero, a Mr. Howard Roark. Roark is the archetypal masculine creator who finds meaning in life through his architecture - designing buildings not for the sake of others, but for his own purposes and ego. He shows little emotion, is entirely selfish (the primary point of Rand's book is that selfishness is a virtue), and has integrity that is irreproachable.

He refuses to be what Rand calls a "second-hander," one who lives through and for others rather than for oneself. The characters who represent the second-handers are all socialists and/or social workers of some kind. They seek to better the lives of others but ultimately end only in seeking power. They justify coercion of individuals by appeals to the greater good of mankind or the necessity of equality.

Of course, Rand seeks to make a point that a collective society does great harm to individuals and that socialism has a long history of coercion and corruption - her point it well taken by this reader, but it should be noted that these broad brush strokes with which she lays it on very thickly can't be imbibed as broadly as she means. Not all collectivists seek to coerce, not all leftists seek power. Nevertheless, as her work is a fictitious novel, Rand seems to take the appropriate liberties when portraying characters as she does to make her points clear.

To the theme of selfishness, I wonder if the libertinism that Rand proposes can be brought to live in peace with Christianity' doctrine of living for others - of dying to the self - of not living for one's selfish gain? To a certain degree, and in a certain way, Christianity does say that you should live for yourself; you should seek to be the most satisfied in God so that you can glorify Him better. In living to your own spiritual gain God is glorified and you are happy. In the case of Rand's manuscript the primary difference with Christianity seems to be that man has supplanted God. Man is to be glorified, man is the end-all be-all, and it is not a spiritual gain man seeks, it is merely material or personal.

What the relation is between the two, I don't really know, but I hope that in reading David Boaz's Libertarianism: A Primer I may come to some conclusions.

Finally, Rand's book reads very easily, has some of the most interesting characters you will ever meet, and a plot that is...well...riveting (note the pun as regards architecture). I recommend it to all of you as an excellent read well worth your time, and an excellent introduction to the pitfalls of collectivism and statism, or why capitalism is to be preferred to all other economic systems. However, as you read it, you will disagree with many of Rand's presuppositions and arguments that regard the existence of God or the nature of Christianity, but understanding her perspective may prove to be valuable to you.

JK 7/11/05