DeoOmnisGloria.com

BOOK REVIEW: The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand

Why did I choose to read The Fountainhead? It’s considered Ayn Rand’s key work detailing her philosophy of Objectivism in a work of fiction. Objectivism, for those who are unaware, is a philosophy espoused by more and more Americans who often deem themselves Libertarians. I’m a sucker for fictional books with a philosophical basis, so I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to read this, even though it was a large 700 page work.

As an initial warning, this is not the best written book. Some large works are so captivating they are difficult to put down (I’m thinking of Stephen King’s The Stand or Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings for example), this book was not like that. I had trouble getting through a few overly boring sections of the book; I felt it could be cut down by 200 or 300 pages and still effectively get across the story. The characters aren’t perfectly developed either. In fact, this may be the only book I’ve ever read where the hero is a rapist and his victim is happy to be raped! But that’s another issue.

The core reason for the book’s existence is Ayn Rand’s philosphy of Objectivism. It’s difficult to quickly sum up Objectivism, so I’ll simply say that it is a philosophy that teaches that man can be excellent and should strive for this. It also teaches that the perfect man is completely self-serving and only concerned about his own wants and needs. In Ayn Rand’s words:

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
- - Ayn Rand

Needless to say, this philosophy does not mix well with Christian philosophy and especially with Christian morality. Rand understands this instinctively and gently mocks religious believe in the book. It’s important to note that she originally included another character, a pastor, who “tries to save the world with an outworn ideology . . . [his ideals are] precisely what the world has to be saved from” (from her notes on the book).

So why doesn’t this mix well with Christianity? There are two key issues I have with the philosophy (I have many problems with it, but for brevity’s sake I’ll stick with two). First, I believe she built it upon a faulty assumption. This is from the book:

Look back at history. Look at any great system of ethics, from the Orient up. Didn’t they all preach the sacrifice of personal joy? Under all the complications of verbiage, haven’t they all had a single leitmotif: sacrifice, renunciation, self-denial? Haven’t you been able to catch their theme song - ‘Give up, give up, give up, give up’? Look at the moral atmosphere of today. Everything enjoyable, from cigarettes to sex to ambition to the profit motive is considered depraved or sinful. Just prove that a thing makes men happy - and you’ve damned it. That’s how far we’ve come. We’ve tied happiness to guilt.

Clearly, Ayn Rand had a minimal understanding of Christianity and theology. She also seems intentionally blinded to reality - this is more a revelation about the state of Ayn Rand’s mind than a condemnation of Christian morality. But it is silly as well. In this book those that are completely selfless and serve others either are secretly after power (“the worst kind of second-hander”) or they become miserable, bitter and mean. I can’t help but wonder which category Rand would put Mother Teresa in! The notion that service is demeaning and goes against our humanity is revolting. But the deeper foundational belief that we can only be happy through determined selfishness is downright scary. Why? Because these actions lead to the misery and loneliness that Rand seems to hate - true joy cannot be found on this road.

Second, Ayn Rand makes a mistake in defining ‘freedom’ in this book. Freedom is the ability to control your will - the ability to choose the right path without being encumbered by sin. Rand’s characters never achieve this type of freedom. They are constantly driven by their tendencies, their weaknesses. It is fascinatingly pathetic.

That said, Ayn Rand is correct in one way: we should strive for excellence in our lives. I would suggest, however, that excellence isn’t achieved through selfish sinfulness but through adhering to God’s Will, which is the only way to find true joy. Giving joyfully to others when nothing is in it for us opens our minds, hearts, lives in more ways than one. Refusing even the needs of the poor because it doesn’t help you personally isn’t “excellence,” but rather “impotence.” Life is greater than Ayn Rand could comprehend.

I do not recommend this book - the philosophy is too faulty.

God bless,
Jay

Posted by Jay at June 12, 2004 8:44 AM | TrackBack