Fountainhead Blog 3

Question 1-
Wynand is pandered because he gives in to the society's corruption and wrong doings. He gives in just to make a better newspaper. Now Wynand is hating himself for that.
Wynand thinks this is self-betrayl because he has given in. He is now depressed and needs help from someone. That somene who comes along is Dominique.

Question 2-
I think Toohey's reason for trying to get Dominique and Wynand together is for his own personal gain. One Toohey's reasons is to get the Stoneridge contract signed. Also to have Wynand distracted for a while, so he can d o what he wants.
The purpose of Toohey's plan was in my opinion all about control. I think Toohey felt that if he had control the he would automatically have power over the society. toohey already has the cntrol over most of the society but, it never hurts tonhave even more control.


Question 3-
Toohey's overall purpose for the New York Banner is to make people see his way only. His way is to not be an individual but be collective as a society. Control is the key to Toohey's plan.
Dominique knew that there were deeper motives behind Toohey. I fel that Dominique had way more common sense to even think that Toohey only wanted the contract. Dominique is very correct in her assumption about Toohey.


Question 6-
I think Dominique visited Roark in Ohio because she can't stop think about him. Roark doesn't accept her proposal because if he did, he would be cheating himself. Roark knows that giving up architecture would be giving up his dream. I donn't think he's willing to do that for anyone.
I think the visit showed that Dominique is truly a selfish person. I feel that way because, no matter how she felt about the world not accepting Roark's work, she should've askef him to give up his dream. I think the true Dominique is unfolding as time goes.

Blog 2 The Fountainhead

QUESTION 1- I actually think things were the exat opposite meaning, Dominique resisted Roark mentally but not physically. Dominique has been pursing Roark and trying to make herself believe she wants him but, when they began having sex, her mind is telling her no. Therefore, making her reject him physically.
In one way I see Dominique as a victim and also as not one. Although no one deserve rape, Dominique is more of victim by choice. If she had not lead him on things may have happened differently.


QUESTION 2- Dominque is fighting and pursing Roark because she still has strong feelings for him and hating him because of the rape. She has now set out to destroy him I think this does show a deeper character in her. I know see th angry and hateful side Dominique has. Yes, joining Toohey is an attempt to wreck Roark's career. However, Dominique's motives for destroying him are different.


QUESTION 5- In my opinion it is sort of like Dominique is admiring Roark. Not for his physical looks but, becauseo of his ideals. Meaning Dominique appreciates and likes that Roark does what he wants without answering to anyone.

QUESTION 6- Dominique is trying to criticize Roark's work because of her selfishness. She is so selfish that she doesn't want Roark to share his work with anyone else. She is giving him praise in her column but at the same time putting him down.

Dominique views on human society are poor. Dominique doesn't like human society because she feels that they are unappreciative. She also has low views when it comes o great men doing well. She needs to show more support toward good work like Roark.

Fountainhead Blog 1

Question1:
Howard Roark was expelled from Stanton Institute of Technology for being different. Roark didn't want to follow tradition and be like a lot of the other students. He wanted to create his own path to architecture, and it got him expelled.
The Dean of Stanton Institute of Technology responded to Roark by saying he was just being rebellious, which was a lie. To him, Roark was not like the other students, Roark wanted to make a difference by not using the past architectural work. Some of the teachers saw great talent in Roark and the others thought the way the Dean did.

Question2:
I think that the difference Roark is trying to show is that the Dean lives in the past. Roark is living in the present and is not looking to the past for ideas. Roark can't seem to understance why the Dean would want to look backwards to move forward.
The principle behind the Dean is the fact that the Dean follows the past in order to move forward. However, Roard knows that if the Dean's theory of following the past is incorrect and is exposed then the Dean would not make sense. This means everything the Dean and teachers have said about using the past will be brought to light about being incorrect.

Question3:
Peter Keating is not a valedictorian based on architectural skill. Keating became valedictorian by taking ideals and work from the past. He basically cheated his way through school. He doesn't even deserved his honor.
Keating received high grades because he did what ever the teacher asked him to do. In my opinion he has very low moral character. If copying is his way of receiving valedictorian then he shouldn't have it.

Question4:
Francon is no different from Keating he has used past achitecture to make himself famous. Francon's success also comes from designing and building in big cities. Francon has many things in common with Keating. For one, they both graduated from the same institute and believe's in using other's work.
Although Francon and Keating are alike they are one hundred percent different from Roark. Roark believes in using his own creativity to be an architect. He doesn't use other's work from the historical time.

Question5:
In my opinion society is rejecting Cameron's work for the same reason they did Roark's work. Society doesn't like anyone who doesn't follow in the footsteps of using past work. Roark becomes employed with Cameron because he thinks individually like him.
Roark and Cameron share a number of qualities alike. They are both talented in architectural skill an they are independent designers and thinkers. Fundamentally they are different from Francon and Keating because they dont believe in using historical work. Francon and Keating believe that in order to be successful you must use the past and Roark and Cameron think the exact opposite.

Blog Four

Question 1.) In my opinion, I would not want to live in that society. Everyone is expected to be the same and live up to the same standards. The quality of live their is not long. The elderly are basically treated like nothing, and have nothing to live for once they are old. The country is not ran by an elected president but, more of a dictatorship council. The people are encouraged not to get married and have personal relationships with others. To my knowledge, there is not a lot of technology. I don't know to much about the education but, I dont think it was to important in this society.

Question 2.) I think this book is set in the past. I feel that way because of the society and how there is not a lot of technology.

Question 3.) In Ch. 3 an awesome discovery was made and that discovery was electricity. Electricity is a great thing to have and it would've opened many doors for this society. I would've used electricity in these ways:

1.) For central lighting (meaning instead of using candles and torches they would have total electric)

2.) For cooking (stoves and ovens)

3.) For central air

4.) For telephones if they had them


Question 5.) I think the reason behind the council's rejecting Equality's invention was very dumb. The council wasn't ready to move into the future and use electricity. To me the greatest fear the council had was, moving into the future and progress that was being made.

Anthem Questions

Question 1) To live in a society were there is no "I" would be hard. It would be hard because you would have no individual rights. I there were no individual rights then I would wonder how could there be group rights.

Question 4) I think the unspeakable word is transgressor. The word transgressor means to commit an offense by violating the law. Transgressor is not used in that society because that was taught to go by the government laws. Meaning that they have no individual voices and that if they spoke out then they would be breaking the law.

My Opinion of Anthem

Question A: I feel there is no such thing as a collective brain because people should think individually. No one can think for someone else they need to make their own choices. I don't think Peikoff's opinion would have changed because no matter what a person doesn't think collectively. If computers were to have all the knowledge in the world, I still don't think it should replace a human's brain. I think having a global brain can only bring forth more issues. Meaning that if computers were to become to intelligent humans would have to fight to stay alive.



Question B: I think what Ayn Rand is trying to say is that she knows what she wants in life and that's what makes her an individual. The possibilities she is discussing is, the fact that people are being considered a collective brain because they can't decide what they want in life.



Question D: I think what Peikoff meant was that America is finally thinking for itself. Not only are we thinking but, making decisions to write or speak about what we feel. In some ways my opinion of individualism differs because I think that people today are not expressing thier own opinions. America today is following the government and not making correct decisions that will bring a better future. China's collectivisim was seen by the way China handled the production of goods during the 2008 Olympics. China took control of the tainted food and made sure that farms didn't produce food that was going to make people sick.

Just My Opinion

"Man's Rights" discussed lots of individual rights and why people should have them. Two of those rights were the rights to property and action. The most concentrated right was the right to life. Also in this essay, Ayn Rand wrote about capitalism and how it is needed to uphold the law.

In the essay Collectivized "Rights", there was a certain key point that compared it to "Man's Rights". That point was the fact that most of the Collectivized "Rights" essay was based on "Man's Rights". Meaning that Ayn Rand based her rights of how society should be on the individual rights of man. For example, "just as a man needs a moral code in order to survive, so as society needs moral principles in order to organize a social system.

In my opinion there wasn't much contrast between the essays. I feel that way because the Collectivized "Rights" essay was based on individual rights. All in all, I found both essays interesting and I would like to read more of Ayn Rand's work.