Finished ‘The Fountainhead’ a few days ago, was pondering over it for a while, quite strikingly, I feel that on thinking deeply enough the philosophy in the book seems a lot much similar to the one expressed in BhagvadGita, sermons of Osho & the philosophy of Arisotle/Chanakya & is miles apart from the way of life described in hard-core religious texts, the ones that promotes selflessness !!
Feels like every person has a Peter Keating and a Howard Roark inside him to a varying degree of influence. Keating chases its own happiness as told by others and gets no real happiness (and in turn no real self respect) but only social respect (or social comfort). Roark chases its real happiness but discomforts others which lead to opposite.
The choices made by Keating are regretted by Roark and vice-versa.
I can’t resolve the contention that why should we face a choice, why should not, there always exist a way where you don’t have to leave either of the things, a balance has to be struck between:
1. Roark style selfish but honest choices which at times are socially discomforting
2. Keating style faking a dishonest life painful to one’s true self
Basically, why is there no society where Roark style behavior is sustainable, where does the Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ fails here, of course a pure Roark style society would progress at much faster pace and hence should overrun the other ways of civilization !!!