The Fountainhead - Howard Roark Speech (Ayn Rand)

Back


From The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand, Gary Cooper as Howard Roark delivers the memorable courtroom speech in self-defense for dynamiting Courtland.

Channel: Entertainment
Uploaded: August 10, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Author: Sidewinder77

Length: 00:05:53
Rating: 4.76
Views: 150080

Tags: Ayn Rand Fountainhead Gary Cooper individualism collectivism self-ownership capitalism

Embed Code: Paste this code in your page


Video Comments:
BlackProteus (December 5, 2008 at 2:49 am)
I'm saying that deregulation isn't always right. And I gave that one point as an example. Market fundamentalists like Rand say that deregulating the market is always good. Well, I just gave an example where it created havoc.
okooma (December 4, 2008 at 10:16 pm)
dont even joke like that
podunkest (December 3, 2008 at 4:30 pm)
"but anyone with common sense knows that our markets have never been deregulated to the extent of true functionality"

I was just about to say essentially the same thing I quoted above. What about that? You're blaming laissez-faire capitalism because one idea was implemented in a non laissez-faire system and didn't work. That'd be like putting a baseball player in a basketball game, and if he does bad, you say he's bad at baseball. Not the best analogy, I know, but I'm sure you get my point.
CrimsonToast (December 3, 2008 at 8:37 am)
early 2008 it was announced that they are making a film version of atlas shrugged and that Angelina Jolie would be starring as Dagny Taggart (Angelina Jolie is surprisingly an avid reader of Rand)but with Jolie's pregnancy there is doubt that the movie will be made.
:-(
BlackProteus (November 28, 2008 at 8:07 pm)
deinse81 -

I really have to explain to you why lying is generally wrong? That's surprising. Well, lying is wrong because it is an expression of power over someone else, by depriving them of correct information to your advantage. That is a kind of abuse.

The Latin and Greek I'm using can be found in your standard English dictionary, I assure you. These terms are part of the English language, which is a syncretic tongue. And my use of them has meaning. Don't be so proud: look them up.
deinse81 (November 29, 2008 at 1:21 am)
If lying meant "depriving of correct information to one's advantage", we would constantly be lying. Are you suggesting that Bill Belichick (head coach, Patriots) is a liar, because he doesn't brief the opposition before every game, even though they clearly need the correct information on what tactics he will use?
So let's start at the beginning:
What is lying, and why is it wrong?
I feel like we're learning something other than Latin terms here:).
BlackProteus (November 29, 2008 at 2:03 pm)
deinse81 -

I have already explained it. The example of a game is different because both sides, by virtue of playing a game, already know that they will be withholding information from each other. They have, on equal ground, agreed to do that at the outset. Same with fiction, etc. Lying, on the other hand, is when there is no such agreement, and you are not just withholding, but misleading.
deinse81 (November 29, 2008 at 10:41 pm)
Allright, now we're getting somewhere: we established that lying means misleading someone.
However, you declared a moral principle: "Lying is wrong."
Now it's your turn to prove this principle, derive it from some fundamental truth, or at least another, higher principle.
So far all you have offered is that it's generally accepted: well guess what, so was slavery at one time: that doesn't make it right.
Why is the principle "Lying is wrong." true?
BlackProteus (November 30, 2008 at 7:52 pm)
deinse81 -

This is not such a controversial point, I didn't think, even for Objectivists. And we are far away from the issues, but I'll play along.

Lying is, as I wrote, an expression of power over someone by misleading them. It is an intellectual form of force or coercion. Just like physical violence, it is generally wrong and immoral. However, one's purpose -- or end -- can make it ethical. For example, self-defense.
deinse81 (November 30, 2008 at 11:41 pm)
It's irrelevant what objectivists believe. The point is that someone claiming to be qualified to pass judgement over an entire philosophy should've been able to understand what lying is and what it isn't: Let's say I lie to you about having a puppy here in the room with me. What power does that give me over you, and what does that force you to do against your will, if your idea that lying is coersion is true?