Struggle Between Excellence and Mediocrity in The Fountainhead

We are told the familiar story of how elite rule decayed and a liberal society arose as a society that was individualistic, egalitarian, entrepreneurial, and voluntary, However, Appleby makes everything seem fresh and anew in these pages, as the combination of out-of-the-way stories unearthed from the autobiographies as well as Appleby's own insight puts the familiar story in a vastly different light. I was especially intrigued by an argument she made about the new careers that became available in post revolutionary America. The unprecedented reality to rise in the world brought a new kind of generalized identity in to the world. Whether they made their way in publishing, preaching, the military, art, commerce, or among any number of many different paths, their stories all took a common form: They all wrote about the anticipation of opportunity that was awakened in a society overflowing with new opportunities. people rose to these expectations early in life, often bypassing youth altogether, although they did tend to receive help from a fellow patron. More often than not, these people felt that in the end they had done it themselves, looking up at others rising in the world around them. It is because of this that they had become to think of themselves as a type, that they were the sort of person whom succeeded through hard fought personal effort, as Appleby herself states "A kind of freemasonry of the aspiring took shape," (p.127). And it was this type, that defined America starting with this

From day one, middle-class merits are expected to do great things; they are expected to excel in school and sports, Brooks contends (194). He furthers this by saying that the activities that the middle-class participates in become the “bricks” of their identities (195). Brooks argues that character is not created in youth and just retained throughout life, but is built up gradually and people must struggle to maintain and improve throughout their lives (195). He moves his argument forward by talking about how society will reward these meritocrats (195, 196). Brooks believes that society is constantly praising these kids, and that this praise pushes them towards the realization that their success means nothing, unless they give back to society (196). He uses the example of a baseball player enjoying trips to clinics to share stories with the younger kids there (196). Brooks then moves into discussing the choices meritocrats must make later in life; he insists that some people can choose to be made famous because of looks or money (196). He says the other side of this, is to choose an opportunity more worthy of your time and others’ praise

Two Cheers for the Maligned Slacker Dude by Nathan Robin is an essay from the Wall Street Journal on February 19, 2011. Nathan Robin is the head writer for “A.V. Club,” the entertainment section of the Onion (481). In this essay, Robin aims to convince his readers that men in their 20’s can accomplish great things. The idea of being young and creative is what Robin emphasizes in the essay. It is interesting what Robin uses to persuade his readers about the idea of being young and creative. Robin uses a movie, and four men, who are billionaires today, and his own personal experience as examples to persuade his readers.

Well, this is the message that Horatio Alger gives to his readers that some people feel as though it’s a myth as oppose to others thinking it’s great guidelines or a great blueprint to success. In a selection of the money and success chapter in “Rereading America: Cultural Contexts for Critical Thinking and Writing”, a professor

What lies at the heart of each character of The Fountainhead is their own central principle, idea and drive. Roark, the hero and protagonist, embodies creativity, efficiency, independence, and reason. On the other hand, Lois Cook is the avatar of a notorious logical fallacy—the Appeal to Novelty. This fallacy states that because something is novel and never-before-seen, it is automatically better than an existing predecessor; the only criterion used to measure greatness is modernism. While this fallacy may be a rebellion against the familiar, conceivably stagnating “don’t fix it if it ain’t broke” mentality, it manages to be only a complete reversal of the philosophy, providing no further reasoning as to why the novelty is actually better.

Mr. Keating's actions of nonconformity in the movie Dead Poets Society benefitted his character in many ways. Mr.Keating was the poetry teacher of a group of boys who used to be in “Dead Poets Society” who chose to live transcentally. In his class he encouraged the boys to do whatever they want to do, to believe in themselves, and not follow the crowd. He told them to seize the day no matter what and just like Thoreau you should “[l]ive each season as it passes; breathe the air, drink the drink, taste the fruit, and resign yourself to the influences of each”(Thoreau). As you live each day you should live it as simply as possible and live each like it was your last. Each of the boys in the Dead Poets Society benefited from living tanscentally with the help from Mr.Keating. One of the boys got the girl of his dreams and another got the confidence to stand up for

In a capitalistically inclined economy, the influences of wealth and social esteem are rooted deep within the ideologies of such a system. Value of an entity is prescribed by these facets, those without wealth or esteem are belittled and depreciated, while those that come to acquire said commodities are prioritized above others in societal outlets. This is such that instills a drive within those under the governance of a market economy, the desire for immense affluence, as well as incontestable social influence. Duddy Kravitz in The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz by Mordecai Richler, and Willy Loman in Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller thoroughly exemplify this drive for excess wealth and power. When analyzing the characters of Duddy Kravitz and Willy Loman, it is made distinctly evident that Duddy Kravitz is successful to a greater degree, when compared to Willy Loman, in achieving the generic and superficial capitalistic views of success.

Ego: The “I” or self of any person; a person as thinking, feeling, and willing, and distinguishing itself from the selves of others and from objects of its thought (www.dictionary.com). In the book Anthem, by Ayn Rand, the central character Equality’s, prime motive in sharing his invention was not to improve the world but rather for egotistic reasons. Wanting to become a scholar more than anything, Equality tried proving to the council that he does not belong with the other street sweepers. “We give you the key to the earth! Take it, and let us be one of you, the humblest among you” (pg. 71). His motives were wrong, nevertheless they had virtuous qualities. He should have been sharing his invention to further the success of humankind as an alternative instead of boasting on himself. If everyone in the world acted as Equality did then the world would be much more advanced, but everyone would be selfish by wanting to further his or her own

Initially, the film, “Dead Poets Society” shows much about how we all have to become our very own when it comes to our choices in life. As a teacher in Helton teachers kids to learn to think for themselves and to become something great in life, with a great saying, “Seize the day. Because, believe it or not, each and every one of us in this room is one day going to stop breathing, turn cold and die.” Being that no matter what in life we are all going to die someday, it's up to us to change the world the short time we are here. More examples in the film were those of, Knox, who stood up to go for his love and never giving up, Todd, manages to overcome fear of speaking and stands up for what he believes, Charlie (Nuwanda), even tho he did go too far, he takes his individualism and shares his opinion

How should we live our lives? Do you live for others or for yourself? What do you deem to be the ideal: selflessness, or selfishness? Why? Ayn Rand’s novel The Fountainhead addresses these issues and her philosophy behind it called Objectivism. Her rebellious rhetoric is to convince us that the only true virtue is selfishness and that we should abide by its standards and live for ourselves.

Tradition, Honor, Discipline, and Excellence. Those are the four pillars in the film The Dead Poets Society, which takes place at Welton Academy, a prep school located in Vermont, 1959. The Headmaster of the school is Mr. Nolan, who is very strict and traditional leader. The film focuses around a group of boys that attend Welton, who later reinstate the Dead Poets Society (DPS). The boys are Neil Perry, Todd Anderson, Charlie Dalton, Richard Cameron, Pitts, Meeks, and Knox Overstreet. Two of the lead boys are Neil Perry and Todd Anderson. Another main character is Mr. Keating, who is the new poetry teacher at Welton Academy. He encourages his students to become their own individuals and seize the day. Mr. Keating is an alumni of Welton. When the boys find his old yearbook, they discover that he was in the Dead Poets Society, which leads them to confront him on what it is. Mr. Keating reveals that it was made by people dedicated to sucking the marrow out of life, that they would read poetry together and let it drip from their tongues like honey. The boys decide to start their own DPS. Neil is a very outspoken and charismatic boy, who is the leader of the DPS. Todd, Neil’s roommate, is very quiet and shy. Each boy struggles with individuality. Both of them are very dynamic, changing drastically throughout the film. The Dead Poets Society focuses on the social issue of personal voice and independance and how gaining it or losing is can change a person.

“Miller sees many people’s lives being poisoned by their desire to be successful. People like the Lomans are doomed to try for success but fail, with all the resulting guilt that such failure brings. Others like Ben and Howard display an ability to make money that deems them successful but at the cost of their own moral integrity.” (Abbotson, 317)

​Through observations of the rich, a man or woman who has obtained richness often times are lacking in character traits that makes up a good man or women.  For example, Donald Trump as a

A person who gives great attention to their acceptance in society and other people's adoration towards them and disregards everything else to gain that acceptance is a person who throws away the truly good things in life to be valued by others. The first example of an fallible human that Franklin provides his American readers to learn from is a man he met during his lifetime. Franklin observed this man and recognized that he had a liking for acceptance, and was constantly engaging himself in political excitement, disregarding his own affairs, and destroying them by that disregard. Franklin then declares, “He pays, indeed, too much for his whistle.” (Franklin 46). To put it another way, Franklin is essentially saying that this man valued popularity over his integrity. This statement by Franklin advocates that the mans careless behavior destroyed relationships and because the man had such a hankering need for popularity he threw everything away to reach it. Since Franklin points out that the man destroyed his affairs, he suggests that this kind of desire for acceptance in society brings consequences that a person cannot avoid. This mans need for

Even after reaching the top where “He had everything he’d ever wanted” he realizes that he “couldn’t convince himself” he was happy (Rand 335). Keating is surrounded by material success; a superior position, fame, and wealth. Despite all of that he is hollow because he is not happy. He compromised his morals and his individual judgment to become a man dependent on the approval of the ton and ends up a failure. Rand does not allow his sacrifice of himself to go unpunished and after Keating falls from his perched seat he turns into a dejected alcoholic. Keating sacrificed himself by never thinking to value his own importance, and he has sacrificed others due to a misguided conformist notion that moral integrity can not exist along with success.