For the New Intellectual - Essay Example

He says that the conquering of the soul is already happening in the world today as man has been made to believe that altruism is the ideal human state. That way people are encouraged to suffer and personal progress stagnates collectively for the sake of others, that is; the will of all, subjugated to the will of all. According to him, by teaching men to unite, as they are currently being encouraged to do son in form of nation block and other groupings, mankind is being manipulated to morph into a single neck on which they can be collective manipulated and enslaved.

He argues that collectivism is designed to subjugate the individual and elevate groups; he postulates that one man is held as evil while society is seen as God, thus through collectives, the soul of the individual are slaughtered and the rest follows meekly. The soul of and individualist is advanced in Roark’s defense before a court He disputes the popular assumption that selflessness and collective ideology is the most beneficial and progressive altitude by saying that it is only through individualism that great achievements and discoveries have been made in retrospect (Rand 71).

He uses several analogies of men who made landmark discoveries in history, he speculates that; the man who discovered fire was probably leeched, he says, for the “evil” he did, yet since then mankind has benefited from fire, the same fate may have befallen the discoverer of the wheel. Speculation aside, he mentions some more verifiable truths such as the fact that Anesthesia which was an important discovery in medicine was initially considered sinful, he also mentions the fact that many scientists and inventors were persecuted for their knowledge which the world came to rely on.

Upshot of his argument is that these men were not inspired by the desire to serve their community to do the great things they did, in-fact in most cases they were directly contravening what was expected of them. Yet by following their selfish egoistic individual desires and ambition, they came to benefit the society in its entirety. He claims that individualism is responsible for mankind achievement and America’s success and prosperity and greatness and that those who set out to do good for society often ended up causing blood baths.

To a great extent, I agree with both arguments of both speakers, quintessentially, both paint individualism as the ideal human conditions, in Tahoohey’s he claims that subjugation of society can only be achieve if men are made to lose their individual identity and ascribe to a collective one. In essence he is saying that an oppression and individualism are mutually exclusive since for one to oppress a people, the needs must first eliminate the individual identity. This is true since even in prison, one is stripped off their name and give a number they also get uniform clothes and in some cases haircuts, this is because the best way to control people is to make them see themselves not as individuals but as members of a larger community.

The second arguments paints individualism as being the stuff from which genius and creativity and innovation spawns, this is logical because in essence most people will achieve the greatest success if they are intrinsically motivated; not by the idea of monetary gain or public approval but simply because they personally desire i to do what they