Just some thoughts from a pseudo-intellectual..
It's not difficult to criticize Ayn Rand, given the incongruity* of her own chosen path and the convictions of her philosophy, Objectivism. But regardless of Rand's nonconformity with her own standard, her message of unyielding principle and rejection of the refactoring and regurgitation of past ideas as accepted intellectualism is a powerful one.
Fountainhead attacks the pseudo-intellectual tendency to reject any new ideas not built on past greatness. Rand's assertion is that this rejection is based on ignorance, coupled with a fear of misunderstanding of anything new. New and different ideas that are not well understood, and hence cannot be regurgitated, threaten the pseudo-intellectual's ability to pacify his or her own ego. In this, they can be exposed as frauds whose only true ability is to understand that something is great because they are told that it is so. This is the great fear of the pseudo-intellectual, personified by Peter Keating who repeatedly turns to Howard Roarke for guidance. Keating's only talent lies not in recognizing and creating greatness, but repeating that which has been defined as greatness. Motivation for his success comes from satisfying his ego by controlling the destiny of men he deems lesser, or by listening to ignorants around him validate his 'place in the world' by celebrating that his own flavor of style regurgitation (collectivism of ideas in the mind, analogous to political collectivism) as a new or modern-day 'greatness.'
The world of Fountainhead, much like our own, is full of imitators whose greatness lies only in repackaging that which already exists in a new way, to be consumed by largely ignorant masses who only recognize greatness because they are directed as such. Anything falling outside of the defined boundaries of greatness is rejected, disparaged, and labeled as a travesty or the product of an intellectual dolt. Oftentimes products that cannot be easily dismissed by pseudo-intellectuals on the basis of merit will be labeled as different for the sake of being different. In this, pseudo-intellectuals not only bolster their own egos, but also solidify their perceived role as an authority on a subject they don't fully understand.
Rand is cautioning against allowing others to motivate your choices in life, encouraging individualism. In her world, greatness originates from simply loving what you do and striving for greatness in that, not by doing what you think others will perceive as great in hope of receiving external validation. (in the form of monetary compensation, or stroking of your own ego) Validation should come from within, and should simply be accepted. By ignoring what and who you really are, and living your life to the standards of others, you initiate a cycle by which your own validation can only be achieved externally.
This viewpoint is an ideal, one Rand feels all men ought to strive for. In the real world, life is not so cut and dry. This ideal, however, is accessible to only a minority. Rand tosses aside practicality in the name of idealism. Nonetheless, awareness of one's own vanity and susceptibility to feed and pacify the ego first while satisfying ourselves last is an important step towards understanding ourselves, and successively in obtaining true happiness.
One might question whether in writing this, I'm pacifying my own ego, or regurgitating ideas impressed upon me by Rand - ironically enough. I can say only in defense of this that I don't agree with everything Rand believes - in fact I'd argue that Rand is too idealistic and hence her philosophy has no validity outside of academic discussion. Understanding something is something entirely different from believing wholeheartedly.
* Incongruity - a word oft-used by Rand to emphasize how out of place ideal men, men who would not allow themselves to sacrifice their convictions despite the influence of the culture around them, appear against the backdrop of society.
Fountainhead attacks the pseudo-intellectual tendency to reject any new ideas not built on past greatness. Rand's assertion is that this rejection is based on ignorance, coupled with a fear of misunderstanding of anything new. New and different ideas that are not well understood, and hence cannot be regurgitated, threaten the pseudo-intellectual's ability to pacify his or her own ego. In this, they can be exposed as frauds whose only true ability is to understand that something is great because they are told that it is so. This is the great fear of the pseudo-intellectual, personified by Peter Keating who repeatedly turns to Howard Roarke for guidance. Keating's only talent lies not in recognizing and creating greatness, but repeating that which has been defined as greatness. Motivation for his success comes from satisfying his ego by controlling the destiny of men he deems lesser, or by listening to ignorants around him validate his 'place in the world' by celebrating that his own flavor of style regurgitation (collectivism of ideas in the mind, analogous to political collectivism) as a new or modern-day 'greatness.'
The world of Fountainhead, much like our own, is full of imitators whose greatness lies only in repackaging that which already exists in a new way, to be consumed by largely ignorant masses who only recognize greatness because they are directed as such. Anything falling outside of the defined boundaries of greatness is rejected, disparaged, and labeled as a travesty or the product of an intellectual dolt. Oftentimes products that cannot be easily dismissed by pseudo-intellectuals on the basis of merit will be labeled as different for the sake of being different. In this, pseudo-intellectuals not only bolster their own egos, but also solidify their perceived role as an authority on a subject they don't fully understand.
Rand is cautioning against allowing others to motivate your choices in life, encouraging individualism. In her world, greatness originates from simply loving what you do and striving for greatness in that, not by doing what you think others will perceive as great in hope of receiving external validation. (in the form of monetary compensation, or stroking of your own ego) Validation should come from within, and should simply be accepted. By ignoring what and who you really are, and living your life to the standards of others, you initiate a cycle by which your own validation can only be achieved externally.
This viewpoint is an ideal, one Rand feels all men ought to strive for. In the real world, life is not so cut and dry. This ideal, however, is accessible to only a minority. Rand tosses aside practicality in the name of idealism. Nonetheless, awareness of one's own vanity and susceptibility to feed and pacify the ego first while satisfying ourselves last is an important step towards understanding ourselves, and successively in obtaining true happiness.
One might question whether in writing this, I'm pacifying my own ego, or regurgitating ideas impressed upon me by Rand - ironically enough. I can say only in defense of this that I don't agree with everything Rand believes - in fact I'd argue that Rand is too idealistic and hence her philosophy has no validity outside of academic discussion. Understanding something is something entirely different from believing wholeheartedly.
* Incongruity - a word oft-used by Rand to emphasize how out of place ideal men, men who would not allow themselves to sacrifice their convictions despite the influence of the culture around them, appear against the backdrop of society.