BroncoBobby

Ah yes, contentment in ignorance.

In this case, is it necessary to adopt the philosophy? This individual clearly does not have the comprehension skills necessary to understand the underlying meaning behind "The Fountainhead". How can one find virtue in Roark and at the same time reject the very things that make him virtuous? I find this to be the deeper issue at hand. How does one go about enlightening an individual who lacks the skills necessary to comprehend the concept?

Interesting how he seperated the two. I find both to be singular achievements of the individual. While a large number of people are required to construct a piece of architecture, it still remains the vision of one individual. Any person involved can be replaced without consequence to the end result, except the Architect. Without him, the vision changes, hence the dynamic of the architecture changes. This bookseller sounds like the kind of person who thinks that the masons helper is equal to the Architect in the achievement of architecture.

Not at all, I think that we will evolve to the point where we can seperate emotion from disagreement with others. Too many people today react angrily due to ignorance of the other persons point of view. Free will does not require us to react with irrational emotion.

Since rational people still have the capability to "go postal" so to speak, a government is needed to protect against this possibility. You are absolutely right unless we as a species evolve beyond this. And of course, there will always be a need to protect against foreign invasion. My thinking requires that there would be no national boundaries. I don't think mutual arbitration is feasible since there would need to be some principles or laws that everyone would operate off of in order for the mutual arbitrartion to work properly. The only institution that could do this would be some form of government. My thinking is that people should be capable of finding mutually beneficial solutions without requiring a formal standard. Our discussion here also leads us to define the term 'rational person.' There are people who I consider to be rational even though they may not agree entirely with Objectivism--in which case (since our principles may differ), we'd definitely need a government to resolve rational disputes. You are right, my thinking is not reasonable in the near or even distant future, it is more of a conclusionary hope for mankind.

Thanks for the welcome. I understand that even moral, rational people can have disagreements. But, still couldn't those problems be solved through mutual arbitration rather than by having a government in place for that service? I must admit that it is difficult for me to visualize a non-oppressive government. From my research every government in history has turned into an oppressor. That piece of evidence is hard for me to get beyond. I understand though, that in a society of Objectivists, that cycle should theoretically be broken. I still believe that we as heroic beings will one day evolve to the extent that government is extraneous.

What is so "flawed" about our human nature, AqAd? Could it be our reason and self-interest? Do you really believe that man is "flawed" because, as you said earlier, he "does not always choose rationally?" Wasn't it God who allegedly gave us our mental faculties, which include the ability to choose rationally or irrationally--to make choices, right or wrong? Thus, wouldn't that make God responsible for such a human flaw? Why would God hold us responsible, and send us to hell, for a flaw he himself created in us? Most of the Catholic priests and teachers that I had growing up taught that we are of a sinful nature. The greatest of those sins was the use of our divine gifts of reason and intelligence to question our god. Thus, there was reward in heaven for denying our will or desire to question that which was accepted by the church as law. We were taught that only a faith based belief in the one true god, as defined by the church was the path to salvation. Thank god I'm an atheist now

I was so excited when I found this place. I just couldn't believe that there was such a forum for people who felt as I do. I began reading Ayn Rand after an aunt introduced me to the Fountainhead about 15 years ago. She was shocked that someone who had graduated architecture school hadn't even heard of it. After the first chapter, so was I. I finished the Fountainhead in two days, and for the first time in my life felt like my eyes were open. I found a copy of Atlas Shrugged as soon as I could. To be honest I found the reading itself ponderous, but the material offered a great deal of clarity to Objectivism. I have for years called myself libertarian, I suppose philosophically I am in many ways. I believe that in the very long run man will no longer need governments and individuals will be capable of true self-determination. Pragmatically however, I am clearly objectivist, as mankind is not within a hundred generations of my vision. I hope to learn more and gain more clarity, thanks.