The Fountainhead and it’s effect on our head

Ayn Rand was undoubtedly brilliant. She spread an entire philosophy using ficiton as her medium in the Fountainhead (released in 1943). Millions have read her works, businessman today still passionately proclaim her philosophy is the foundation of their world view.

For all those unfamiliar with Ayn Rand’s teachings, the basic idea is that all people should first and foremost act in self interest. Self interest is the foundation of capitalism in her view, and if everyone acts selfishly, society eventually converges to an optimal state of being.

The purpose of this writing is not to argue for or against her teachings. My personal opinion is that there are definitley some interesting big picture ideas, however the world is a complicated place and rarely if ever does an idea make sense in all cases. Ayn Rand’s philosophy fails to account for empathy, emotion, and many aspects of what it is to be human, and I believe this makes it fundamentally flawed. She understood the world from the perspective of a highly rational individual, emotion was clearly a secondary function (just watch a Youtube video of her speaking). If emotions did not exist, which many would argue are the very essence of what it is to be human, her philosophy would probably be close to perfect.

What I think is most interesting is why I believe her ideas have gained so much traction through the years. Paradoxically, it has not been because it appeals to logic, but because it influences a particular set of emotions.

Guilt, anger, and embarrassment do not feel good. Nearly everyone has experienced these emotions on some level in their lives, except for those with mental ilnesses such as psychopathy. I believe Ayn Rand’s philosophy has been so popular because it reduces the hurt of these feelings. It gives a rational basis for why one should not allow emotion to enter the equation, reducing emotional pain. “It does not matter that this employee will no longer be able to pay rent for his family if I fire him, I am acting for the greater good of this company and therefore society. Also, if I fire this employee I will be able to provide a job for another one, if the market supports that of course.”

I want to make it clear that I am not trying to argue for or against the economic value of this statement, many would say that the depths of it have played a part in making the free market such an effective way to create material value in the last several hundred years.

However, I will absolutely argue that the popularity and the mass appeal of this idea is not based on the collective selflessness of the world’s businessman to act for the greater good. When Ayn Rand said that by being selfish one could create a better society, she looked at the problem from the perspective of a brilliant and cerebral academic trying to solve a problem.

I would argue that many of Ayn Rand’s followers are attracted to her philosophy because it makes them feel better and provides rational guidance on how to make tough decisions. It appeals to the ego, it’s an excuse to suppress feelings of empathy, it provides a straightforward way to look at the problem when the distinction between right and wrong is blurry.

The philosophy actually appeals completely to the individual and their emotions, yet allows the individual to rationalize he/she is doing something for the greater good, for society as a whole.

To illustrate the point, imagine a parent says to his/her child “it’s ok if you steal cookies from the other children at school, their parents probably have more money then we do.” This parent may be making a logically concise and highly intelligent economic argument. If cookies cost 5 dollars per week, and there are 40 weeks of school in a year, and this goes on for 8 years of primary school, the parent is saving $1600, which could help pay for college. The child gets his/her sugar fix every day. The worst case situation is that the child gets caught, but cookie stealing is unlikley to stay on the child’s record permanently, so this negative is essentially negligible.

However, there is an unintended consequence, which the parent trying to save money for college overlooks due to a flawed understanding of human nature. As this child grows into adulthood, cookies become bicycles, bicycles become cars, cars become banks. The parent is supporting a set of ethical ideals that although seem harmless logically, actually end up fundamentally changing how the child learns to perceive right and wrong. The child does not learn to feel guilty when he/she steals, and in all likelihood feels no guilt whatsoever when interrogated by police officers after being arrested for robbing a bank.

So if you are a supporter of Ayn Brand’s philosophy, look inside yourself and ponder what it is about the philosophy that really appeals to you. Are you acting in self interest because you want society to be better, or are you acting in self interest out of self interest? And if you are acting in self interest, have you noticed any unintended changes in your world view? Age may bring wisdom, but choices forge what that “wisdom” is.