** At the granite quarry, Dominique is deeply attracted to the red-headed worker who stares at her insolently. She pursues him aggressively, but resists him in the moment of her triumph. Given that Dominique is eager to make love to Roark, why does she physically resist? Ayn Rand once stated regarding this scene that, if it is rape, “ then it is rape by engraved invitation.” What does she mean? Is this actually rape, i.e., is Dominique an unwilling victim?
* Rands statement made me really asses the situation Was it really rape? Dominique wanted him so badly and she made that clear but she still fought. Maybe he thought she was playing as she always was.
Dominique is a true control freak. Though she desires deeply to make love to him she holds back, maybe because emotionally she is not prepared. When he can to the room she seemed so shy or frightened. She wanted to make love but she didn't know how.She wanted Roark to belong to her at that moment but instead his focus was hatred,fear and disgust from other situations around him.
** Though strongly attracted to Roark, Dominique both pursues and fights him. Is this inner conflict regarding her love representative of some deeper aspect of her character? How does this ambivalence relate to her destruction of the Greek statuette that she loves? To joining forces with Ellsworth Toohey in an effort to wreck Roark’s career? To refusing to pursue a serious career in spite of her great intelligence? Are Dominique’s motives for thwarting Roark the same as Toohey’s?
*Something is seriously wrong with Dominique. For every action there's a reaction and hers are all screwed up. One minute she loves him then the next she wants to get rid of him, just like the statue. I think she wants him all to herself,but is that a reason to try to destroy him? Again she has issues. Let's face it ! Dominique has amazing writing talent but why doesn't she want to excel? I think she's afraid that she will be used just like her father does his best employees. She is aware of the pain that comes with this yet, she and Toohey use and destroy Roark. The chick is crazy!!
**At this point of Roark’s career he is hired by Roger Enright, Anthony Cord and Kent Lansing to construct major buildings. What kind of men are Enright, Cord and Lansing? Do they share some fundamental characteristic in common with each other and with Austen Heller? What does Lansing mean when he tells Roark that “ the shortest distance between two points is not a straight line--it’s a middleman?"
*Roark is hired by three businessman that have one thing is common; they are all individualist including heller. Lansing seems to care alot about Roark his statement simple means that you dont have to suck up or beat around the bush. Just let out what you need and be totally honest.
** At Kiki Holcolmbe’s party, Keating gives advice to Roark. He says: "Always be what people want you to be.” What is the meaning of such a statement? Why does Keating believe this? What does such an approach to life reveal about the soul of Keating and of people like him?
*Keating has low self-esteem or maybe lack of confidence. This approach is a safety belt for him and others who follow it. He tells Roark to just be what people want you to be then basically everyone is one your side. Roark doesn't mind fighting he understands that this duty comes hand in hand as an individualist but Keating has never had to put in any work to really know how. He has no purpose.
**At the same party, Dominique thinks of Roark’s as “ the face of a god.” What is she responding to in Roark? In seeing such beauty in Roark’s face, an evaluation not shared by the rest of society, what does Dominique reveal about her own soul?
*Roark and Dominique are so much alike, both are individualist. Dominique recognizes this and it only makes her fall deeper for him.When she calls him "the face of god", she is responding to his realism, his actions and his open perspectives. She understands his actions while others look in disgust.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Monday, February 9, 2009
Ayn RAnd- THe Fountainhead part 1
4.) Keating goes to work for Guy Francon, the most successful and prestigious architect in the country. What are the methods by which Francon has achieved commercial success? Does he have anything in common with Keating? In what ways do they both differ from Roark?
Keating and Francon share many similar features when it comes to their success. Francon has gained his success by claiming the work of others. He has a firm full of talented employees who either get unrecognized for their work or even punished for individual values. Keating has joined the team and is doing the exact same thing. Neither seems to mind who they hurt in the process. Also I think that Keating and Franchon both lack passion for architecture. They both seem to create schemes to get rid of the success so that they may have that position. Keating stated several times that he wasn’t sure what he wanted to do in life and that the only reason for his decision was because of his mother.
I believe that Howard Roark is the epitome of what an artist is, unlike Keating and Franchon. Roark believes in the structure and emotion of his work. He has an open eye for the ideas of modernism; something both Peter and Guy think is absurd. He doesn’t worry about what one may think, he is OK with what others may consider failing as long as he can get personal satisfaction out of it. Howard believes his sketches are his sketches and really doesn’t care what others may want.
1.) Explain in detail the reasons for Howard Roark's expulsion from the Stanton Institute of Technology. The Dean states that Roark has "a determined little group of defenders" among the faculty, while other professors "felt it their duty" to vote for his expulsion. Why do the faculty members on each side evaluate Roark and his work so differently?
Howard Roark was expelled because of the manner in which he chose to do his assignments. Roark was very grand on modernism, which is not truly supported in the Institute. Roark was given certain assignments where he had to express architect within a historical period but instead of doing that he supplied insubordination by drawing squares. This was simply because he did not support their teaching.
Don’t think for one moment that Roark was dumb, no, he was very intelligent. Maybe the most intelligent person within the Institute but he only wanted to do draw what he believed was art.
Roark may have had those professors to defend him because they knew of his talents and had an open eye to the idea of modernism that he practiced. They also saw a true architect. For example, Roark’s disability to allow Keating to do a half job on a simple building, though he knew Keating was taking advantage of him each time. (Later in book) These people saw talent, while the other half may believe that America was not ready for that type of exertion. Like the Dean, they may have seen him as weird, and thought that he was just bull-headed.
3.) Peter Keating graduates as valedictorian from the Stanton Institute of Technology. Does this mean that he is an outstanding architectural student? By what methods did he get such high grades? What does this say regarding his moral character?
Peter Keating did not graduate as valedictorian because he wanted or desired to be an outstanding architectural student. Keating only wanted to be on top…. He did what ever he had to do to make sure that no one was ahead of him. This is supported by the mere fact that he didn’t do his final and had no idea what it was on. Keating has no care for architectural and only studied it because of his persistent mother.
On my behalf, I think this only symbolizes the fact that Peter has no morals. Unlike his competition (Howard and Roark) he does not want to make his honestly. For Keating, it is only about the name and fame. Will this come back to hunt him? I doubt it. Many people live the exact same life styles today but there’s nothing we can do about it.
9.) Cameron and Roark, though brilliant designers, get few commissions. At one point, Cameron urges Roark to surrender his principles and design conventionally. Given that Cameron himself neither did nor would do such a thing, what is the meaning of that scene? What does Ayn Rand stress about the price paid by great creative thinkers in a society that does not recognize the merit of their new ideas?
This was only added to stress how dedicated Roark was to his beliefs. He believed strongly in modernism and what and when to apply it. Cameron saw himself in Roark and I think it made him feel better about all his endeavors when he was reminded of Howard’s dedication. Cameron had lived that life and maybe he didn’t want Roark to suffer as he had done, he stated several times of Roark’s talents and how they would be wasted with him. This may be an option to consider but I still believe it was a test; a test that we should put ourselves through sometimes just to test our faith.
Rand stressed this to strengthen the foundation of the book. This is only another example of what passion was within the story. She reminds us that even though others may not support our work, that’s no explanation for losing faith in it ourselves. She supplies the definition for a true artist. Though modernism is not supported Cameron and Roark still have a fight left within them.
8.) The design of the Cosmo-Slotnick Building establishes Keating's fame. What is the nature of Keating's relationship with Roark at this point in the story? Why does Keating both approach him for advice and help and take pleasure in making him perform menial tasks while an employee at Francon's? Why does Keating feel a need to degrade the man who is his meal ticket?
This simply goes back to the morals that Keating does not have. Though the Cosmo Building established Keating, it was not his work. It was a building designed by Roark. Keating feels a need to degrade Roark so that he may make himself feel better about his situations. Keating uses Roark just to build himself up. Yes, he did contract a job for Roark but does that mean he owed him anything. That is not Roark’s way of working.
I supplies basic jobs for Roark because requested that job. He refused to design any conventional buildings, it’s not his way. Roark knows that Keating is deceitful. He simply does the reconstruction (if that’s what you’d like to call it) because he can’t allow Keating to produce trash. This is the inner instinct of an artist.
Keating and Francon share many similar features when it comes to their success. Francon has gained his success by claiming the work of others. He has a firm full of talented employees who either get unrecognized for their work or even punished for individual values. Keating has joined the team and is doing the exact same thing. Neither seems to mind who they hurt in the process. Also I think that Keating and Franchon both lack passion for architecture. They both seem to create schemes to get rid of the success so that they may have that position. Keating stated several times that he wasn’t sure what he wanted to do in life and that the only reason for his decision was because of his mother.
I believe that Howard Roark is the epitome of what an artist is, unlike Keating and Franchon. Roark believes in the structure and emotion of his work. He has an open eye for the ideas of modernism; something both Peter and Guy think is absurd. He doesn’t worry about what one may think, he is OK with what others may consider failing as long as he can get personal satisfaction out of it. Howard believes his sketches are his sketches and really doesn’t care what others may want.
1.) Explain in detail the reasons for Howard Roark's expulsion from the Stanton Institute of Technology. The Dean states that Roark has "a determined little group of defenders" among the faculty, while other professors "felt it their duty" to vote for his expulsion. Why do the faculty members on each side evaluate Roark and his work so differently?
Howard Roark was expelled because of the manner in which he chose to do his assignments. Roark was very grand on modernism, which is not truly supported in the Institute. Roark was given certain assignments where he had to express architect within a historical period but instead of doing that he supplied insubordination by drawing squares. This was simply because he did not support their teaching.
Don’t think for one moment that Roark was dumb, no, he was very intelligent. Maybe the most intelligent person within the Institute but he only wanted to do draw what he believed was art.
Roark may have had those professors to defend him because they knew of his talents and had an open eye to the idea of modernism that he practiced. They also saw a true architect. For example, Roark’s disability to allow Keating to do a half job on a simple building, though he knew Keating was taking advantage of him each time. (Later in book) These people saw talent, while the other half may believe that America was not ready for that type of exertion. Like the Dean, they may have seen him as weird, and thought that he was just bull-headed.
3.) Peter Keating graduates as valedictorian from the Stanton Institute of Technology. Does this mean that he is an outstanding architectural student? By what methods did he get such high grades? What does this say regarding his moral character?
Peter Keating did not graduate as valedictorian because he wanted or desired to be an outstanding architectural student. Keating only wanted to be on top…. He did what ever he had to do to make sure that no one was ahead of him. This is supported by the mere fact that he didn’t do his final and had no idea what it was on. Keating has no care for architectural and only studied it because of his persistent mother.
On my behalf, I think this only symbolizes the fact that Peter has no morals. Unlike his competition (Howard and Roark) he does not want to make his honestly. For Keating, it is only about the name and fame. Will this come back to hunt him? I doubt it. Many people live the exact same life styles today but there’s nothing we can do about it.
9.) Cameron and Roark, though brilliant designers, get few commissions. At one point, Cameron urges Roark to surrender his principles and design conventionally. Given that Cameron himself neither did nor would do such a thing, what is the meaning of that scene? What does Ayn Rand stress about the price paid by great creative thinkers in a society that does not recognize the merit of their new ideas?
This was only added to stress how dedicated Roark was to his beliefs. He believed strongly in modernism and what and when to apply it. Cameron saw himself in Roark and I think it made him feel better about all his endeavors when he was reminded of Howard’s dedication. Cameron had lived that life and maybe he didn’t want Roark to suffer as he had done, he stated several times of Roark’s talents and how they would be wasted with him. This may be an option to consider but I still believe it was a test; a test that we should put ourselves through sometimes just to test our faith.
Rand stressed this to strengthen the foundation of the book. This is only another example of what passion was within the story. She reminds us that even though others may not support our work, that’s no explanation for losing faith in it ourselves. She supplies the definition for a true artist. Though modernism is not supported Cameron and Roark still have a fight left within them.
8.) The design of the Cosmo-Slotnick Building establishes Keating's fame. What is the nature of Keating's relationship with Roark at this point in the story? Why does Keating both approach him for advice and help and take pleasure in making him perform menial tasks while an employee at Francon's? Why does Keating feel a need to degrade the man who is his meal ticket?
This simply goes back to the morals that Keating does not have. Though the Cosmo Building established Keating, it was not his work. It was a building designed by Roark. Keating feels a need to degrade Roark so that he may make himself feel better about his situations. Keating uses Roark just to build himself up. Yes, he did contract a job for Roark but does that mean he owed him anything. That is not Roark’s way of working.
I supplies basic jobs for Roark because requested that job. He refused to design any conventional buildings, it’s not his way. Roark knows that Keating is deceitful. He simply does the reconstruction (if that’s what you’d like to call it) because he can’t allow Keating to produce trash. This is the inner instinct of an artist.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
RAnd 5
1. The uncharted forest symbolizes freedom to Equality. Once Equality got to the forest he realized that he could do whatever, whenever.
2. To liberty and Equality the house was heaven. It was filled with books, nice clothing and furniture just for them. The most amazing thing in the house for me was the mirrors. The two got the opportunity to see who they were. They were always told that they looked exactly like their brothers. The room was also a big thing for the two. Seeing just two beds and not twenty let the couple know that at one time people did not live like they did within their society.
4.Equality now realizes that he and Liberty can live in the life of I . He can know gain knowledge from hsi house filled with books. He has his own world where he can now raise his kids to have self-determination and goals.
2. To liberty and Equality the house was heaven. It was filled with books, nice clothing and furniture just for them. The most amazing thing in the house for me was the mirrors. The two got the opportunity to see who they were. They were always told that they looked exactly like their brothers. The room was also a big thing for the two. Seeing just two beds and not twenty let the couple know that at one time people did not live like they did within their society.
4.Equality now realizes that he and Liberty can live in the life of I . He can know gain knowledge from hsi house filled with books. He has his own world where he can now raise his kids to have self-determination and goals.
Rand 4
2. The novel takes place in the past. There's no electricity within in the city at all. The citizens use candles and sun as there main and only sources of light. Also you can tell by the description of clothing, furniture and small factors similar to those.
3. Equality discovers electricity. This electricity could be the lead to new forms of treating sicknesses with in the city. It could also provide answers for issues that the scholars may be facing. The birth of electricity could also open more job opportunities. Electricity could also cause someone to find a way out of the live there living.
6. Equality is experiences the idea of being free. He is getting the opportunity to live in his own world of "I". He wakes up when he wants, eat what he wants and sleeps when he wants. He laughs when he remembers that he is "damned" because he likes the feeling. Maybe he thinks he should have been damned all along. Being Damned opens up free opportunity within the uncharted forest.
1. The society is like a prison. NO one has any thought. This society practices collectivism, there's no "I" or "me". Everything is focused on we. You are granted a life course by other men. There isn't any personal life goals for you. In this society you can either be a scholar or a street sweeper but whatever you are it's not your decision. Why? you have to do whats best for you city and not you.
3. Equality discovers electricity. This electricity could be the lead to new forms of treating sicknesses with in the city. It could also provide answers for issues that the scholars may be facing. The birth of electricity could also open more job opportunities. Electricity could also cause someone to find a way out of the live there living.
6. Equality is experiences the idea of being free. He is getting the opportunity to live in his own world of "I". He wakes up when he wants, eat what he wants and sleeps when he wants. He laughs when he remembers that he is "damned" because he likes the feeling. Maybe he thinks he should have been damned all along. Being Damned opens up free opportunity within the uncharted forest.
1. The society is like a prison. NO one has any thought. This society practices collectivism, there's no "I" or "me". Everything is focused on we. You are granted a life course by other men. There isn't any personal life goals for you. In this society you can either be a scholar or a street sweeper but whatever you are it's not your decision. Why? you have to do whats best for you city and not you.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Rand Blog 3
1. No selves just I! What a society. Sometimes I think that's exactly what America needs but on the other hand it would be completely insane. Sometimes we have to deal with "I" before we can deal with "WE". Just like the book, if there's no "I" how could we have individual goals. What would we look forward too. A lot of times we do things to open paths for others. How can we possibly have leadership if everyone leading, someone has to follow. We can do somethings but I have to do somethings along.
2.As I finish reading page 51 of Ayn Rand's book, all I could think about for days was the unspeakable word. What could it possibly be? I've pondered over several words such as individualism,freedom,God,I, me, and many others but I am still not sure of this word. I really like this about the book because it keeps you going. It's so much going on in this short story that you have no idea what the word is. And I don't. What word could possibly cause you your life. The characters are already living crucial lives which must be the effect of this unspeakable world. Maybe saying this costs you your life,it may also be a danger to your family, but who really knows.
3.I think Rand used those names to put a emphasis on we. To show that there was not really any individualism at all. These people had significant names, they were numbers under rule. It made me think they had no importance besides the day long jobs they possessed. Which is indeed true! They are only allowed to feel what everyone else is feeling. The numbered names show a sense of belonging- they were like cows in a herd. Each herd had a job to do and only communicated with other cows within their herd. This gave the book so much more importance.
2.As I finish reading page 51 of Ayn Rand's book, all I could think about for days was the unspeakable word. What could it possibly be? I've pondered over several words such as individualism,freedom,God,I, me, and many others but I am still not sure of this word. I really like this about the book because it keeps you going. It's so much going on in this short story that you have no idea what the word is. And I don't. What word could possibly cause you your life. The characters are already living crucial lives which must be the effect of this unspeakable world. Maybe saying this costs you your life,it may also be a danger to your family, but who really knows.
3.I think Rand used those names to put a emphasis on we. To show that there was not really any individualism at all. These people had significant names, they were numbers under rule. It made me think they had no importance besides the day long jobs they possessed. Which is indeed true! They are only allowed to feel what everyone else is feeling. The numbered names show a sense of belonging- they were like cows in a herd. Each herd had a job to do and only communicated with other cows within their herd. This gave the book so much more importance.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Ayn-Intro and Foreword answers
A. People may disagree but I think that we do have collective brains. If we acknowledge it or not we feed off of each others as human beings and technology only matures this process. Human beings have used their "collective brain" techniques since creation. We have always gathered our knowledge from each other. It's a huge factor called history. I believe that history is the foundation of our collective brains. The info that was once produced is gathered, shared, and then processed again. And every time that it is reprocessed it changes or conforms which only makes us research the info that leaks into our collective brains.I'm not sure if Peikoff's(or Rand's) idea would change due to technology but I'm positive that they would consider technology. Technology has created a stronger bond within America by supplying easy access for the information.No, I don't think that computers will replace ours entirely. It will remain an "outboard brain". Why? Computers can't feel, they don't remember rough times or times of appreciation; things that I call history, whether good or bad. We control the computers and allow them to do as much as we expect.
B. I agree 100% with Rand's statement about knowing what you want and going after it.A life without goals is no life at all but, I must say that I disagree with her loathing humanity. Humanity has saved many lives including mine and not living up to it or acknowledging it would be insane. I really don't get a clear understanding on what possibilities she's referring to. Is she saying that the world cant be totally humane? I do believe that in some instances we cant practice humanity as a whole because everyone has different goals, but can we try? Some is always better than none at all.+++Ayn Rand looked at man and saw an individual who didn't quite know which way to go. An individual in search for guidance.
E.Ayn Rand's sense of the common good seems to be pushing toward collectivism, something that Americans don't represent. We are individuals and the law of the land(constitution) is made to represent individual rights. Can common good be helpful? Yes, in some occasions when collectivism is requested, then we evaluate the common good. But within personal beliefs, production,respect and opinion, individualism seems to be primary. Think about it, you never want to be disrespected about your beliefs,opinions or your goals(productivity).
B. I agree 100% with Rand's statement about knowing what you want and going after it.A life without goals is no life at all but, I must say that I disagree with her loathing humanity. Humanity has saved many lives including mine and not living up to it or acknowledging it would be insane. I really don't get a clear understanding on what possibilities she's referring to. Is she saying that the world cant be totally humane? I do believe that in some instances we cant practice humanity as a whole because everyone has different goals, but can we try? Some is always better than none at all.+++Ayn Rand looked at man and saw an individual who didn't quite know which way to go. An individual in search for guidance.
E.Ayn Rand's sense of the common good seems to be pushing toward collectivism, something that Americans don't represent. We are individuals and the law of the land(constitution) is made to represent individual rights. Can common good be helpful? Yes, in some occasions when collectivism is requested, then we evaluate the common good. But within personal beliefs, production,respect and opinion, individualism seems to be primary. Think about it, you never want to be disrespected about your beliefs,opinions or your goals(productivity).
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Man's Rights vs Collectivized Rights-Ayn Rand
The essay's Man's Rights and Collectivized Rights by Ayn Rand both have many exquisite distinctions. From the her examples and beliefs of ethics, moral rights, individual and collective rights to her clear understandings of tyranny,collectivism and capitalism. She supplies info that many may never think of.
Rand states that individual rights are for the individual while the term collectivized rights are a contradiction because collectivism is only a group of individuals and that groups have no rights, only the individuals in the groups. So what impertinence does collective rights hold? Along with Rand I don't think there's much. Collective rights belong to groups, so if I'm not in the group I don't have rights?WRONG! Individual rights, on the other hand, lets me know that every person within our society has rights no matter who or what they do.Collective rights are produced from groups which are made up of individuals. Both forms of rights do however hold up for the common good; they both support our government and constitution, the law of the land.
Once completing this passages, I had to ask myself one question. Do I have any rights, am I truly free? As I pondered the question, I looked around. As a U.S. citizen I am dressed in a mandatory uniform that has to be worn to attend school for free, I am placed under a city curfew and through every step I take there's some limitations. No, these limitations don't reflect my age but my existence. Should I complain ? No, many countries have bigger battles that uphold worse consequences. This passage helps me to realize that there's no clear meaning to a man's rights.
Rand's perception seems to be very similar to mine in that The government was set to protect man from criminals—and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government.(Rand,1963). I think that our government really recognizes our morals rights through the constitution. They are recognized but many have limitations. These limitations are indeed needed to maintain a stable government. Besides a few limitations, I feel that America has done a great job with providing us with rights.
Rand states that individual rights are for the individual while the term collectivized rights are a contradiction because collectivism is only a group of individuals and that groups have no rights, only the individuals in the groups. So what impertinence does collective rights hold? Along with Rand I don't think there's much. Collective rights belong to groups, so if I'm not in the group I don't have rights?WRONG! Individual rights, on the other hand, lets me know that every person within our society has rights no matter who or what they do.Collective rights are produced from groups which are made up of individuals. Both forms of rights do however hold up for the common good; they both support our government and constitution, the law of the land.
Once completing this passages, I had to ask myself one question. Do I have any rights, am I truly free? As I pondered the question, I looked around. As a U.S. citizen I am dressed in a mandatory uniform that has to be worn to attend school for free, I am placed under a city curfew and through every step I take there's some limitations. No, these limitations don't reflect my age but my existence. Should I complain ? No, many countries have bigger battles that uphold worse consequences. This passage helps me to realize that there's no clear meaning to a man's rights.
Rand's perception seems to be very similar to mine in that The government was set to protect man from criminals—and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government.(Rand,1963). I think that our government really recognizes our morals rights through the constitution. They are recognized but many have limitations. These limitations are indeed needed to maintain a stable government. Besides a few limitations, I feel that America has done a great job with providing us with rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)