In Which I Discuss The Fountain Head

In The Fountain Head by Ayn Rand, Peter Keating was identified as a man who could have become the ideal like Howard Roark. Also, during our Socratic seminar others also agreed that Keating was incorrect in his actions (through use of the word blame). I feel that once you add the assumption that Ayn Rand wrote her books to help spread her ideas you end up with an inconsistency in the logic of these assumptions.

It boils down to the question of whether or not Rand’s ideas were ones that can be expected to be already known by all people, or if they need to be taught it. If it were innate knowledge that Ayn Rand’s philosophy was how people were supposed to live, then why was there any need to write all of these books about them? They would learn nothing from the books that they were not already aware of. If however you choose to say that people do need to be taught her philosophy (thus justifying the writing of the books) you then admit that to saying that Keating did nothing wrong because he was never taught Rand’s philosophy. Either way, it shows a potential flaw in the novel.


Peter Keating acted incorrectly based on his beliefs.
Ayn Rand wrote her books for the purpose of spreading her philosophy.
Peter Keating was never taught Objectivism.

Either Objectivism (Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism) is innate, or it not innate.

If Objectivism is innate then Ayn Rand had no purpose to write her books. (Contradiction with the second premise)
If Objectivism is not innate then Peter Keating cannot be blamed for his actions. (Contradiction of the first premise)

Therefore, either Ayn Rand had no reason to write her books (inconsistent), or Peter Keating cannot be blamed (inconsistent).
(Therefore either an inconsistency or an inconsistency)
Therefore, there is an inconsistency.

These types of inconsistent statements (to blame Keating) are very common among people, and they often go unnoticed and unchanged. One that is appropriate for what is happening in the United States right now and also irritates me is in regards to whether or not people should vote. The statement is of course the following: “You should vote because people died to give you the right to do so!” For a vast majority of people who say this, the statement is inconsistent with their other beliefs. The example that tends to be most effective is one that concludes that the person hates the terrorist groups for attacking the U.S. on September 11, 2001. When a person dies for a cause, they do so on their own accord for their own beliefs. They should not assume that others would share the same vision and hold whatever they died for sacred just because they felt it was. The terrorists attacked us in the mindset that they were committing possibly the most sacred act they possibly could. However, you do not see these same people (the ones telling people to vote) telling others to become terrorists just because another individual has dedicated himself or herself to the cause.
It seems to me that people are often all too eager to either accept an idea or to project and idea with little thought put into it. These tendencies lead to people putting out thoughtless ideas with others accepting these ideas. One potential cause of this appears as if it could be the current school system, which ironically enough is meant to help prevent this. Tight schedules, large workloads, and the stressed importance of grades often lead to the idea that an education is only measured in numerical values, and that the most obvious answer is always sufficient. While grades represent to some degree a person’s intellectual ability, most of it is dependent on the students desire to display their abilities to others (usually referred to instead as “work ethic”), whether it be teachers, peers, or colleges.
One example of this often seen would be class discussions. Questions are brought up that require a near immediate answer. This need for an immediate answer conveys the ideas to students that no thought is needed, since no time is given for it unless the person happened to have already thought of a response at an earlier time.