To AYN RAND, with "LOVE"

Nothing personal, but may i ask if your philosophy of objectivism was so perfect, why were you in such a mess that you had to smoke 20 cigarettes a day? You should have been happy and contented. You talked much about individualism, but would you disagree that the true merit of an idea lies in it’s impact upon the life of it’s proponent? Howard Roark himself was a heavy smoker in The Fountainhead, wasn’t he? May I ask why? I mean if he was truly at ease with himself why this injurious indulgence was needed? Understandably, the fellow must have been addicted, as you seem to have been. But then, wasn’t it you who talked vehemently about “rationality?”. So, did you mean to say, acts done out of habit, can be rational if they give you momentary respite even if they have an adverse impact on your health in the long run? To you, an individual is rational if they base their actions on sound reason. So, by that yardstick, any consideration of instinct or emotion in the process of making decisions should be irrational. Then, can you please tell me what prompted your Roark to opt for architecture as a career? Coming to you, what prompted you to become a writer? Can you justify these choices by sound reason and logic? You present Roark as a man who had no place for emotions in his decision-making. But if that was so, then why was he so fanatically devoted to his cause/ideology? Doesn’t it show he was as emotional as, if not more than, toohey? And it was that emotional attachment and devotion to his cause which made him stand firm and resolute against all odds? Let us be a little practical, i mean business you see! In most cases, unlike your Roark, individuals come from different social, cultural and national milieu. So the sum-total of all these factors has an inevitable bearing upon the thought-process of the individual. What then, is rationality if all these conditionings are removed? For example there can be arguments in favour of god’s existence and there can be equally strong arguments against it...you can talk like an ardent supporter of capitalism, and i can do the same in regard to communism, so there can believers in different faiths, doctrines and ideologies. How is then an individual to decide what is rational if his emotional leanings are discounted? Let me put it this way, why did your Roark choose to live on? That is the most irrational choice ever! No, I’m ready to prove it with reasoning as you might demand. Well, death is the only certainty, isn’t it? Now if the destination is certain and easily reachable, how rational do you think, is prolonging the journey? Rationality demands that you should take the shortest and the most effective route to reach the destination, doesn’t it? So then, suicide should be the biggest rational act. Do you get the point? Let’s not forget, he is not to be altruistic, but purely selfish. Then why does he live? “Others” can’t be the reason, (altruism stands rejected!). There can be only two reasons then: first he is a “coward”- but then isn’t that fear of something, pain or whatever? And what is fear, if not an emotion? The second reason could be “love of life”- but even then, what is love if not an emotion? So if your Roark was truly rational, he would have committed suicide, why live unnecessarily, when the end is certain? Tell me one thing, did it really never occur to you, that what is the “ought” that a man ought to pursue? This is a very rational question you see! But can your rationality answer this? You might be inclined to say- “a better life” (capitalism, individual liberty, American ways being the sure shot ways of achieving it). But then, ain’t we back to square one then? I mean if "a better life" was achievable through your ideology of "selfishness", why was your own life a total mess? srry, no offence intended, but rationality demands that i should call a spade a spade. You might want to start harping on your idea of efficiency at this juncture. But hey, don’t you know your diehard opponents have been as efficient at what they do as you, or perhaps more. Do I need to remind you, that Karl Marx has produced a greater bulk of literature than you have, and far more analytical and cerebral. And, the man was so convincing that he impressed half the world- isn’t that efficiency? Furthermore, it was a Russian named Yuri Gagarin who first journeyed into the outer space. Isn’t that efficiency? Does not it show that efficiency has much to do with an individual’s personal traits of character than with your ideology? What happened, Ms. Rand, feeling unnerved or angry? Why don’t you have a fag instinctively, as you always do, you ain’t that rational afterall!