i am an individualist. an objectivist. an atheist. best of all i am pinoy. like arch. howard roark of ayrn rand's "the fountainhead", i share the same view of architecture. i am an architect for the single reason that i want to see where my imagination would lead me, where that imagination would give birth to a tangible realisation called architecture. whether this realisation of imaginations should benefit others or not is to be my burden not yours and not theirs. i am an admirer of talents and human achievement. i am good in my field but there are others far better than me and i am happy for them. they are an inspiration to look up to. i am architect. my grandest imagination is to be able to change the present landscape of the philippine housing projects especially for the pinoy middle class. to be able to design a shelter suitable for a typical filipino family which is not only less expensive but durable and beautiful. different. imagination? maybe. but imagination is the drive that makes me an architect. what drives you?
 | wow! thats rare ha, an atheist architect. or the proper word is humanist? not really an atheist. =) |
 | define humanist. define atheist. then tell me why which is proper. and you would not be assuming, would you?
good day. :) |
 | wel if your going to mention fountain, its in the direction of humanism.. it was very well explained there |
| not all atheists are humanists.
fountainhead as well as atlas shrugged talk about objectivism and not humanism. |
| Im not the best person to define what atheism is since i believe in God. I could be a good person to define God's profoundness in an "Architects" perspective, a pro-God architect.
God's immense wisdom in creation are the basis of all of the great Architectural concepts... voronoi of pierre, mobius of berkel, confluence of hadid, flight by calatrava, wedge of light of daniel, fiber distribution of balmond, time-dynamism of bernard and the list go on and on.
I think an atheist architect may be numb, insensitive, and in denial. Insensitive of the beauty brought by complexity and in denial of a supreme understanding.
Locsin, our national artist for architecture, have done numerous great churches scattered within the country... from the greatness of UP chapel of Holy Sacrifice to St Andrew Church in Reposo to the Monastery of Transfiguration in Bukidnon. Can you imagine him doing all these great works without believing in God ? or even in the state of doubt in his faith ?
Ayn may have done a timeless book but it does not mean her words or perspective are spherical, absolute truth. im sad that she is an atheist, i think if she was an architect instead of a great writer, she could have been a believer of God. Maybe being a novelist required too much of being a indepent-thinker.
In the other end, I respect pluralism. There is no absolute "human" worldy truth. Its just me bro, if it works for you... good for you! =) |
| hi ckaeon! how's the weather there @ your 2x3 space @ jy ? =) you are correct ckaeon, its a humanist book sa introduction pa lang. let me quote ayn...
"It is in this sense, with this meaning and intention, that i would identify the sense of life dramatized in The Fountainhead as man-worship."
its clear ckaeon, in "meaning" and "intention" so we are both correct in comprehension of ayn's words.
biernes, lets not talk about atlas. write a blog on it then lets talk about atlas there. |
| ei sf. havent started yet.. im going there to jy on tues. we have to talk daw first. which is weird. anyway.. wel, its true that fountain and atlas are both about objectivism. but to deny the humanist sides of these two novels would be like skipping a couple of chapters of the books.
stoddard temple for example (did i get the title right, havent picked up fountain for quite while) was commissioned to be a grand church for roarks client, but instead he took it up to celebrate his faith. his faith in the human spirit. and people around him including steven mallory, dominique and mike were able to relate in appreciating Stoddard, for they all shared the same faith.
even toohey recognized that roark's religiosity, knowing that he was, but never really specifying which religion, because in that context religions dont always include the involvement churches, if you get what i mean.
now humanism it atlas is way clearer. but lets save that for another blog
now im not really an expert, and i had to stess out wikipedia to review the diffrence with these isms but it is in my understanding that objectivity states that purpose of one's purpose is the purpose itself. A is A ryt? without external constraints. now humanism emphasizes the contributions of all a's to form one giant a. humanism defines the direction of objectivism. although our purpose is here and now (objectivism) in good light it can be a contribution for collective higher purpose for tomorrow (humanism). howards stodard wouldnt be as great as it was without mallory's statue. and both reflective each's exellence because they were done in singular faith. id think humanism is actually objectivism with the additional consideration of morals and ethics. because purpose in essence is the abiltiy to create and/or destroy.
in howards case it was his ability to create efficient housing (humanist in the sense that he wanted to improve lifestyle of its users) and destroy it for the reason that its existance is defeats its purpose due to its inconsistency with the original design (objectivism). in atlas john created the infinite-energy generating machine was to improve lives (h; which it did but in secret valley). it was destroyed for the same reason that its existence defeats its purpose(o).
so i would suggest that both philosophies were hand in hand dramatized in both novels. but you know this thread was never meant to be a debate of faith. its just a discussion of fountain.
|
| i posted a comment based on two ideas, one is that i havent met an atheist-architect, which interests me a lot, second is maybe a person can be too engrossed with ayn's perspective that it can change a person even in the expense of his/her faith.
faith can never be debated. that would take a lifetime. and faith is different from beliefs.
ikaw ckaeon, have you met an atheist architect? = ) |
Comment deleted at the request of the author.
| ckaeon wrote on May 5, edited on May 5 hmmm.. depends on how you define aethism. personally id think that it is a denouncement of faith(comes in all forms and shapes). and i believe that im preoccupied enough in handling those i hold true that id rather not waste my time in discussing things that i dont believe in. |
| i thought i was just up to shout out my thoughts silently as call it echoing silence, also the title of my friendster blog but here are people wide awake with their own thoughts on the matter i brought out.
thank you people for sharing in here. be back soon. ill just have to do work first. please continue your posts. |
| bro, you have no idea how many people would die to seek "truth" in architecture. i can even name you a person who even died still seeking truth. =)
architecture is a gift from God to help man to realize the expanse of his creation. God is the supreme architect. |
Comment deleted at the request of the author.
| biernes wrote on May 6, edited on May 6 antonio gaudi?
are you from assumption college?
coz it seems to me you're living on assumptions.
just like your assumption of a higher being just because you cant find truth. :)
for starters. i was a roman catholic then an evangelical christian who had some little bible education before i found out god thing is but a theory. an assumption.
how about you, have you any idea what atheism is? btw, your idea that an atheist is in denial is again a wrong assumption. in denial of a god are just but theists.
assumption, i think that is your problem, my friend |
| haha! thats a good one bro! i thought there wasnt a punchline coz my sister was from assumption in san lorenzo. =)
like i told you, whatever works for you. i have no problems and i am no better than you bro. =) |
| i come with no offense to you bro but allow me to challenge your skepticism or even your personal truth? http://www.leestrobel.com |
| biernes wrote on May 23, edited on May 23 if you stand on assumption, which you did the very first time you posted a reply and all through out, i am sorry i can not continue to discuss with you anymore on this thread.
i'd like to dwell on fact/s.
1. it is a fact, and im not assuming when i say you are assuming everything from the first post.
you branded me as a humanist and not as an atheist when you know nothing about me aside from this post. that was your first assumption and mistake, my friend.
2. you think an atheist architect maybe numb, insensitive, etc... by your very words you again assume atheist architects are such. but of course you're only giving an opinion. an opinion based on staring at the ceiling without any basis. "i haven't met an atheist architect" , this were your very words.
3. you assume i am dumb by insinuating that i have no idea how many people would die to seek the truth. can you read my mind to say such thing? assumption isn't it?
4. architecture is a gift from god. yes, an assumption of theist architects just like yourself. its a declaration without any proven fact. an assumption.
5. in your last post you wanted to challenge my "personal truth". how do you know i have a personal truth? but then i wouldnt assume i have for i am not sure of the meaning of personal truth.
i only know two things about truth. one is absolute, one is realtive truth. atheism is based on absolute truth and the continuous search for it. religion is based on relative truth.
please, refrain from assuming.
ps
i would accept you calling me bro only in the sense that we are both pinoy.
good day. |
| like i said, posts were based on fountain reference. now thats absolute, where interpretations of the book could be either right or wrong. going through grammatical technicalities is just pointless without content.
i have to say assumption is only part of a method, and questioning is a consequent part of the method for an end mean. and if we dont recognize both as a part of the method then we would just be accepting reality as truth like cake decoration. it looks yummy so therefore it is, without actually tasting, digesting and releasing it back to the ground (analogy for the method).. so to condone the process of assumption is simply naive. if we dont question reality and never consider greater truth, then we would be just like kids in a park running around aimlessly. the empirical depends on the abstract for development. and the abstract depends on the empirical for realization. in other words both go hand in hand. which therefore clearly points out how pointless your debate is.
and personally, im open to hear all versions of truth, because i hold strongly to my own. and in the end of the day, its not about having the right answers, but being happy with the ones you made. and if your happy with yours and im happy with mine, then really what do we have to argue about? and thats coming from a humanist point of view. |
|  like i said, posts were based on fountain reference. now thats absolute, where interpretations of the book could be either right or wrong. going through grammatical technicalities is just pointless without content.
i have to say assumption is only part of a method, and questioning is a consequent part of the method for an end mean. and if we dont recognize both as a part of the method then we would just be accepting reality as truth like cake decoration. it looks yummy so therefore it is, without actually tasting, digesting and releasing it back to the ground (analogy for the method).. so to condone the process of assumption is simply naive. if we dont question reality and never consider greater truth, then we would be just like kids in a park running around aimlessly. the empirical depends on the abstract for development. and the abstract depends on the empirical for realization. in other words both go hand in hand. which therefore clearly points out how pointless your debate is.
and personally, im open to hear all versions of truth, because i hold strongly to my own. and in the end of the day, its not about having the right answers, but being happy with the ones you made. and if your happy with yours and im happy with mine, then really what do we have to argue about? and thats coming from a humanist point of view.  its really critical kasi adrian to veer away from ayn's very very critical writing since she herself discussed her view on God, and declaring she's a humanist. Ayn is the reason why we are even discussing these and if its about architecture, you and i wont even bother a visit.
its good that we all have passion for truth. the guy who posts this article thinks he is true, i think ive witnessed truth, you hold to your own truth, everyone happy BUT someone mentioned that false belief is punishable by death. anyone can be complacent but would a fool know that he is a fool ? =) and yes adrian, mahirap mabuhay sa haka-haka.
seek the absolute truth bro and youll find wisdom, humility and an overflowing happiness. i dont see these as a debate, nor an argument. just an exhange of ideas and im offering a side of a coin. |
| biernes wrote on Jun 19, edited on Jun 19 a fool says in his heart there is no god.. the wise says it to the world.
haka-haka = assumption? hmmm.. i wonder who's full of assumptions?
show me the proof of your so called absolute truth. and again, no assumptions please.
i know 1 absolute truth = religion is RELATIVE truth. (true only to those who believe in same ideas while quarreling among them who has the TRUE master)
ok, since you're offering that absolute truth, will you be so kind to tell me what it is? and what that other side of the coin you are referring to?
|
Comment deleted at the request of the author.
| like i said, posts were based on fountain reference. now thats absolute, where interpretations of the book could be either right or wrong. going through grammatical technicalities is just pointless without content.
i have to say assumption is only part of a method, and questioning is a consequent part of the method for an end mean. and if we dont recognize both as a part of the method then we would just be accepting reality as truth like cake decoration. it looks yummy so therefore it is, without actually tasting, digesting and releasing it back to the ground (analogy for the method).. so to condone the process of assumption is simply naive. if we dont question reality and never consider greater truth, then we would be just like kids in a park running around aimlessly. the empirical depends on the abstract for development. and the abstract depends on the empirical for realization. in other words both go hand in hand. which therefore clearly points out how pointless your debate is.
and personally, im open to hear all versions of truth, because i hold strongly to my own. and in the end of the day, its not about having the right answers, but being happy with the ones you made. and if your happy with yours and im happy with mine, then really what do we have to argue about? and thats coming from a humanist point of view. you're so hot ckaeon. this is the first post i made addressing you. if you can read well my other replies they are pointed towards fragments. are you in his defense?
anyway, i would have to agree with you that assumption is part of an effort to find what ever it is we might be looking for. but to assert an assumption into something you are convinced is a fact without any basis is simply arrogance or perhaps idiocracy.
2nd question, who is having a pointless debate here? this is my blog, this is my page. i post whatever i like to post here because this is mine. an avenue for my personal thoughts. you busted in here throwing your stuff at me. hmmm.
3rd question. you claim you are happy with yours and im happy with mine and there really is nothing to argue about. how come you are here fishing? hmmm.. wouldnt you be happy for me that i cling to objectivism and is happy? how humanitarian could you be?
4th question. so there are many versions of truth? i think you are only referring to the relative kind of truth.
example of an absolute truth is your age. no matter how young you may tell the rest of the world, the fact that you are 40 or 50 or 10, doesnt change that.
example of relative truth is the claim of god. to a catholic his god is the one true god and so claims the INC, the quiboloyans, the adventists, the muslims, the buddhists, even the delusional inside the mental institution claims he has the one true god. no matter how TRUE the claim seems to be to each individual remains true only to that individual.
is this what you are trying to point out to me? that i can claim whatever truth it is i want to believe in? i dont think so. i dont want to be that delusional guy inside mandaluyong and claim superman stays in the north pole. sorry, my bad. it's santa clause... really.
believe me, i've been inside. thats why im now outside... if you know what i mean. |
| 1. believe me. im not hot. in terms of mood that is. evidence would be my tone in writting this reply. because my stand is not of defense nor defense (of fragments or myself). its simply of exploration. whether im wrong or right its just a means is discovering beyond today. so if you take me for someone who's hot, think again about your stand. maybe your hotter than you think you are. and that is a perfect example of gramatical debate. check my words use it against me. and thats never what ive been after. give me context and then lets talk.
2. hey man everyone knows this is your blog. and fact is, ive only been interested because you mentioned fountain, and i thought maybe you knew more than i do about the book. thats why i expressed my thoughts about it. if you wanted your words to be an absolute truth then maybe you shouldve just written it in your diary. ive just assumed (again assumption is a human trait and a process of exploration) that you were interested in feedback because you opened it for everyone to see. but hey i was wrong and im sorry. i didnt mean to challenge you're thoughts. and you are probably right entirely in absolute sense. afterall you do recognize absolute truth beyond everybody else. and i respect that.
3. i am happy with my faith. thats why im not defending it. what i dont get is why do you have to defend yours? and as a humanist i am satisfied in recognizing free thinking beyond constraint. therefore i would be happy to engage other peoples thoughts. and if you find that offensive, hey man again im sorry.
4. if your talking about absolute truth in the genuine sense, i believe that it has not been achieved yet. decades ago it has been an absolute truth that man cannot fly. but time changed that. and as long as time is relative the absolute cannot be achieved. it can only be a race in getting as close to the absolute truth as fast possible. factors which as a designer ive always considered relative, reference of time and space. and your right there is only one truth, but u misunderstood that i meant that there are multiple approaches towards it. and each is varied because they are all relative to its environment. and this is not my bible talking because i dont have one. this is architectural context. which is what attracted me to engage this conversation but is obviously going nowhere. and trust me i am only going through writing this simply because i feel like it. think abt it. discard it if you dont want it.
and age is relative. perhaps your definition of absolute isnt as absolute as you thought it was.
and i never said i believed in god in an individual sense. i believe in the human spirit. and that beyond all that is relative is an ultimate designer. and i have thought denouncement of any other faith is waste of time. so why rant at them at all. they are just doing exactly what your are doing pushing what you believe in. and for me a statement of "i believe in ______" is always better than the statement of "i dont believe in ______"
5. what i meant of versions of truth is like a design competition. entries are submitted and one boasts better that the other. hold that same competition 10 years after and expect better designs. thats because technology is relative. and the absolute truth is a structure that can withstand all elements for all eternity. which is a present impossibility. now corbu wright and other archi greats came close to this absolute truth but not in the entire sense. thats why their structures are still around but only time will tell the full capacity of the word 'absolute'. and that is why humanity will always have space for new greats. because its a humanitarian accumulation of knowledge to an ultimate end, which is still unknown. and therefore everything else is only relative to time.
now if you dont get my point and will just reply with antics about superman and santa claus tell me again how old you are and go through again the concept of relative and your concept of absolute. because without contextual response i really have no further interest in this.
anybody can do word play. and its something i think ive had my fair share back in elementary school.
|
| Firstly, I cannot show you kabayan (since you asked that I dont address you as a brother, which i respect) 'the' proof since the proof lived since 2008 years ago. The truth is offered but not everyone accepts and I don't want to be preachy to people who just hear and fails to listen and most especially to people who finds faults in words instead of life.
Secondly, since we are all architects here, I would want to explain briefly on truth. Anything that humans believe in has a concrete, physical structure to support it. It wont be hidden. It would be bold as an edifice since it solidifies a vision, a string of truth. Mayans in belief of sacrifices created ziggurats, Egyptians in their belief civilized society created cities and temples, Christians in their belief of Christ created Churches from early temples to Romanesque to Gothic to Renaissance, Americans in Manila during our colonization created hospitals in their belief of medicine, Guggenheim in his belief in Art created great museums all over the world, Donald trump in his belief of a business empire created towers of jewel, Rem Koolhaas in his belief of skyscraper language created CCTV. The point is... anything that is true whether absolute or relative truth has a physical, bold architecture to support it.
Lastly, you can always make your thoughts stuck to yourself, kept in a safe place, which could be your enclosed mind OR keep a blog to your friends (which would defy the meaning of a blog since it should be net published). Nobody is busting into somewhere here, this is the internet and everyone owns everything. It cant always be about you, you and you kabayan. Multiply has publishing options if you check its settings. =) |
| thank you ckaeon. in all honesty.
at this point i am actually delighted and your point very well taken.
let's go back to fountain and my original post.
the post was about architecture and objectivism (found in the fountainhead) and me.
my focus is on ayn's philo which again is objectivism which is simply defined as an indiviual's way of life.
with respect to absolutes, objectivism embraces 3 absolutes: reality is absolute, reason is absolute, and rights are absolute.
in the fountain it illustrates the difference between individualism and collectivism in a man's soul; the psychological motivations and the basic premises that produce a man's character.
the hero, roark is only an IDEAL man (the perfect embodiment of the totallity of the philosophy). someone to look up to - not to be worshipped. but if there could be one, that would be him. maybe there is one, maybe there really isnt. but what is important is that there are others like him in one way or another. they are the Objectivists.
whether these objectivists are humanists or not is not the issue i am concerned with as an architect. perhaps i am inclined to that direction but that would only be the result of this practice (which is also called rational egoism. entirely different from egoTism)
this rational egoism is the view i share with the howard roark's character. to defy or battle the "tradition-worshipping" culture that we have. sadly, i am not able to perfect this yet because i have a weightier purpose - for the time being.
rational egoism helps me to become creative in designing buildings by explorations up to certain limitations that i have knowledge of. the goal of my work is to have another satisfying experience, to have been able to create another piece of architecture once again. i create not because somebody commented to me that it is good (tho it could be taken into consideration but is not the defining factor).
this is my architecture link to the fountainhead. |
| fragments, what truth happened 2008 years ago?
i would disagree to your claim that anything that humans believe in has a concrete, physical structure to support it. if you are referring to these structures and monuments built by these peoples you mentioned as the evidence of a deity they are not. they are evidence of their interpretation or assumption of a deity. they are an evidence of culture, belief system and civilization. if they were evidences of some supreme being/s then all forms of gods would then be real. it would then create more trouble amongst all forms of religion we can think of. it does not follow.
these great architects you mentioned are great because of their visionary skills and personal motivations mostly of religious influence =true.
their works are evidences of a religion or a strong belief system = true.
religion and faith have contributed a great deal to architecture because many were/are driven and influenced by their faith.
but it doesnt automatically mean that their religion are also true.
sadly, atheism has nothing to do with architecture. and it all really boils down to the individual's grasp, whims and so forth.
|
| |
