Fore more urdu books visit www.4Urdu.com

More oxford books @ www.OxfordeBook.comFore more urdu books visit www.4Urdu.com158FROM NOVELIST TO PHILOSOPHER, 1944–1957different altogether. Rand finally had answers to the first questions thenovel had raised, indeed the questions that had driven her for years.Objectivism was the rational, error-free system Rand had not found inthe wider world. It began with A = A, her nod to Aristotle’s law of identity.From this basic axiom of existence, it built to a towering edificethat addressed the most important issues of life: economics, morality,sex, knowledge itself. Its centerpiece was Galt’s speech, a philosophicaldefense of the rational, fully autonomous individual. Not only was manfree to choose; he had to choose, and the preservation of life itself wasnot involuntary, but a choice. As Galt explains, “His mind is given tohim, its content is not. . . . Reason does not work automatically; thinkingis not a mechanical process. . . . [Man] has no automatic knowledge ofwhat is good for him or evil.” 55 Rand did not mean this existentially, butliterally. Objectivism denied the existence of instincts or innate knowledgethat propel humans toward food, shelter, sex. Instead, she heldthat the choice to live was a rational choice, to be consciously made byman’s mind. What was the role of the mind in man’s existence? Mindwas everything.The catch was that Rand had chosen to express all these ideas in thecontext of a fictional story. Although she spoke fluidly about her philosophicalaccomplishments to her young followers, translating her systeminto fiction was a daunting task. To integrate her ideas into the flowof the story she had to present arguments without arguing, for Galt’sspeech is a monologue, not a dialogue. It would have been easy to do,Rand thought, if she were writing a treatise. But how could Galt convincinglyexpress these ideas in the context of a dramatic story? She toggledback and forth uncertainly between clashing genres, feeling her mind“working on two tracks.” 56 Every time the words began to flow, Randrealized she was writing as a philosopher, not a novelist. Angrily shewould cut herself off and start again. Until Galt’s speech was finishedshe was unwilling to secure a publisher, making it feel as if the entireproject was on hold. Frank, who had watched her write for more thantwo decades, thought it was the worst time she had ever endured.Rand’s difficulties cut to a deep problem of self identification. “I seemto be both a theoretical philosopher and a fiction writer,” she noted toherself with some pleasure as she began planning the novel nearly tenyears before. 57 At first it had seemed a winning combination. But given its