# Why Buildings are Greater than Nature - The Fountainhead
**URL:** https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/why-buildings-are-greater-than-nature-the-fountainhead/2247
**Category:** Other
**Tags:** objectivism
**Created:** [October 9, 2026, 7:26pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/why-buildings-are-greater-than-nature-the-fountainhead/2247 "2026-10-09T19:26:40Z")
**Posts on this page:** 10
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)
#### Post date: [October 9, 2026, 7:26pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/why-buildings-are-greater-than-nature-the-fountainhead/2247/1 "2026-10-09T19:26:41Z")
I love this passage. Dominique talking to Wynand:
> “May I name another vicious bromide you’ve never felt?”
>
> “Which one?”
>
> “You’ve never felt how small you were when looking at the ocean.”
>
> He laughed. “Never. Nor looking at the planets. Nor at mountain peaks. Nor at the Grand Canyon. Why should I? When I look at the ocean, I feel the greatness of man. I think of man’s magnificent capacity that created this ship to conquer all that senseless space. When I look at mountain peaks, I think of tunnels and dynamite. When I look at the planets, I think of airplanes.”
And now we can think of spaceships too.
Why should we feel small? Nature as such is of no value, because it wouldn’t be of value to anyone. Nature serves us, it is only valuable as far it is of use to us. And there is no limit to our desire or ability, we will conquer it all.
> “Yes. And that particular sense of sacred rapture men say they experience in contemplating nature—I’ve never received it from nature, only from …” She stopped.
>
> “From what?”
>
> “Buildings,” she whispered. “Skyscrapers.”
Nature is what it is. Mountains came to be as they are by purposeless chance. But buildings are the result of purposive and rational action directed towards our goals. Nature represents passiveness, purposelessness and chance; technology represents activeness, purposefulness, consciousness, reason and values.
> “Why didn’t you want to say that?”
>
> “I … don’t know.”
>
> “I would give the greatest sunset in the world for one sight of New York’s skyline. Particularly when one can’t see the details. Just the shapes. The shapes and the thought that made them. The sky over New York and the will of man made visible. What other religion do we need? And then people tell me about pilgrimages to some dank pesthole in a jungle where they go to do homage to a crumbling temple, to a leering stone monster with a pot belly, created by some leprous savage. Is it beauty and genius they want to see? Do they seek a sense of the sublime? Let them come to New York, stand on the shore of the Hudson, look and kneel. When I see the city from my window—no, I don’t feel how small I am—but I feel that if a war came to threaten this, I would like to throw myself into space, over the city, and protect these buildings with my body.”
But free will means responsibility and is a double-edge sword. Whereas nature can do no wrong and is simply as it is, humans can do wrong and cause ourselves harm. We have to choose what to create, whether we should create statues of a “leering stone monster with a pot belly” and soviet style life-depriving apartment blocks, or whether we should create statues depicting men as the greek viewed their gods and proud skyscrapers reaching unabashedly for sky. We have to choose to aim for greatness and counter depravity.
---
### Author:  [@anonymous105](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous105)
#### Post date: [October 9, 2026, 9:26pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/why-buildings-are-greater-than-nature-the-fountainhead/2247/2 "2026-10-09T21:26:36Z")
> [@ActiveMind](#):
>
> Why should we feel small?
Why shouldn’t we feel small?
One reason we could feel small is that we are literally small. We are much smaller than mountains or canyons or oceans or planets.
We are also smaller along some common quasi-metaphorical axes. I say “quasi” because they are kinda metaphors but also still pretty literal. For example, in timescales, the length of time a human will exist is very small compared to a mountain or ocean or planet. The length of time that _all_ humans have _ever_ existed is also very small compared to those things.
These aren’t just arbitrary overly literal quibbles, either. I think these are genuinely very common senses that people are thinking of when they say they “feel small” contemplating nature. Because we are physically small in comparison, and our existence is much shorter in comparison.
Also… is it bad to “feel small” in this way? I think that you and Rand are at least implying that it is. But do you think most people who use that term mean it in a negative way? In my experience, they see it as a very meaningful feeling, nuanced, but mostly positive. They find the feeling spiritually or emotionally meaningful, the feeling puts things in perspective for them, etc.
So… why shouldn’t we feel small?
> [@ActiveMind](#):
>
> Nature as such is of no value, because it wouldn’t be of value to anyone.
What does this sentence mean? I don’t really understand what you’re saying here. I have a guess but my guess is based on common perspectives, my knowledge of Rand, etc… I don’t think my guess even really makes any sense of the actual content of this sentence.
> [@ActiveMind](#):
>
> Nature serves us, it is only valuable as far it is of use to us.
I think I do understand this sentence. Though I think it is still phrased a bit oddly for the concept I think you’re trying to convey. I’m going to make various guesses about what you mean below.
How are you defining “of use” in this context?
Do you think that nature that people _love looking at_ has value? Is them looking at nature a form of “use” by your estimation? Or do you have in mind more tangible forms of use, such as living there, extracting resources, etc.?
My guess is you are trying to get at an idea like this: “Value” is a concept that only really makes sense in the context of sentient creatures who are valuing things. Without sentient creatures, nothing in nature has any value because there is no sentience to assign value.
Is that correct? Or am I misunderstanding you? My guess then is that you might consider “people love looking at it” a valid form of use that provides value. Because definitionally those people are valuing the view. But maybe you disagree because you think they are misguided hippies that aren’t properly valuing things, so that doesn’t count. IDK, I await your clarifications.
Also, my guess is that you do not think that non-human creatures have sufficient sentience to count for this discussion. So e.g. a bear that lives in a forest and eats salmon by a river could be said to “value” his territory. He will defend his forest and river from threats, he will prefer specific trees over other trees, he will choose specific locations or objects to prioritize. Many animal researchers would say he is is attributing value to those things in a bearlike way. But he isn’t making human-level decisions about the area or expressing value in a humanlike way. So my guess is that from your perspective those forms of value are invalid or don’t exist.
> [@ActiveMind](#):
>
> Nature serves us, it is only valuable as far it is of use to us.
Nature doesn’t literally serve us, right?
Like, the same way it doesn’t have any intrinsic value absent sentience to value it. It also doesn’t serve anyone or anything. It just exists.
It seems like you are discarding one metaphorical idea (nature having value) but keeping another (nature serves us) but that seems kind of inconsistent and I’m not seeing the reasoning.
> [@ActiveMind](#):
>
> And there is no limit to our desire or ability, we will conquer it all.
There actually are currently limits to both our desire and our ability, right?
Is this like an aspirational metaphorical kinda statement? Like, maybe one day we will do that?
> [@ActiveMind](#):
>
> Mountains came to be as they are by purposeless chance. But buildings are the result of purposive and rational action directed towards our goals. Nature represents passiveness, purposelessness and chance; technology represents activeness, purposefulness, consciousness, reason and values.
Taking these statements as true for now.
Many mountains also have existed for millions of years. And continue to exist despite natural forces acting on them, barring human intervention such as dynamite.
By contrast no human creations have existed for millions of years. And most human creations collapse and stop existing (or stop existing in their current form and function) fairly quickly if humans stop maintaining them. Without maintenance, no skyscraper will last a million years, right?
So purposeless chance can create something that persists for millions of years, but active purposeful reason can’t do that (yet).
I’m not attributing value here, just pointing out a fact pattern. But can you imagine why that fact pattern might give people some kind of perspective when they contemplate nature? Or why it might make them feel… small?
> [@ActiveMind](#):
>
> > And then people tell me about pilgrimages to some dank pesthole in a jungle where they go to do homage to a crumbling temple, to a leering stone monster with a pot belly, created by some leprous savage. Is it beauty and genius they want to see?
I know Rand wrote this, not you, but you are endorsing it, yeah?
I thought that it was human sentience that created value. No? But ancient structures made by humans were valued by humans, right? So those things _did_ have value, at least at some point, by your lights. Right?
It seems kind of weird to be so harsh towards people that came before at the same time that you are talking about humans creating value. This makes me think maybe my guess was wrong, you don’t think value is attributed by humans. Maybe you think value is some quality that is derived some other way? Such that modern creations have it, but ancient ones do not?
To the extent that humans have persisted for a long timescale (albeit very small compared to nature) why would it be wrong for humans to look back on ancient creations with interest?
> [@ActiveMind](#):
>
> But free will means responsibility and is a double-edge sword. Whereas nature can do no wrong and is simply as it is, humans can do wrong and cause ourselves harm. We have to choose what to create, whether we should create statues of a “leering stone monster with a pot belly” and soviet style life-depriving apartment blocks, or whether we should create statues depicting men as the greek viewed their gods and proud skyscrapers reaching unabashedly for sky. We have to choose to aim for greatness and counter depravity.
So is the issue with the ancient statues that they are bad art? Like they aren’t appealing to your aesthetic?
Is it okay to travel to a crumbling temple as long as that crumbling temple is _not_ in a “dank pesthole” in the jungle and does not feature a “leering stone monster with a pot belly” then?
Like, if the crumbling temple is in a European climate and features a stone depiction that fits with Western European aesthetics, then would that be okay and not a form of depravity?
---
### Author:  [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)
#### Post date: [October 9, 2026, 10:52pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/why-buildings-are-greater-than-nature-the-fountainhead/2247/3 "2026-10-09T22:52:48Z")
> [@anonymous105](#):
>
> Why shouldn’t we feel small?
>
> One reason we could feel small is that we are literally small. We are much smaller than mountains or canyons or oceans or planets.
> [@anonymous105](#):
>
> In my experience, they see it as a very meaningful feeling, nuanced, but mostly positive. They find the feeling spiritually or emotionally meaningful, the feeling puts things in perspective for them, etc.
Sure I think I understand why others feel that. I think I did too, only slightly, when I was getting into philosophy which was through existentialist philosophy. But actually my interest in intellectualism was through astronomy and being awed by the cosmos. Although IIRC a big part of that awe was that I, little human being, could contemplate things so large and far away, and at some point in the future we might be able to affect those things. That makes us special.
> [@anonymous105](#):
>
> These aren’t just arbitrary overly literal quibbles, either. I think these are genuinely very common senses that people are thinking of when they say they “feel small” contemplating nature.
But it’s not what I or Rand are talking about. Sure some people might mean it literally sometimes, but most what they’re talking about when they say this is that they feel philosophically unimportant. And I’m saying humans in nature (as in the nature of being human, not placed in nature) are important and can choose to strive for importance and grandiosity.
> [@anonymous105](#):
>
> > [@ActiveMind](#):
> >
> > Nature as such is of no value, because it wouldn’t be of value to anyone.
>
> What does this sentence mean?
That nature doesn’t have intrinsic value. Things can only be of value to humans (or AGI). Some types of environmentalists (both progressive and conservative) value wilderness for its own sake, without regard to what value it has to humans. It’s possible for wilderness to be of value to humans, but that’s a different thing.
> [@anonymous105](#):
>
> Do you think that nature that people _love looking at_ has value? Is them looking at nature a form of “use” by your estimation?
> [@anonymous105](#):
>
> “Value” is a concept that only really makes sense in the context of sentient creatures who are valuing things. Without sentient creatures, nothing in nature has any value because there is no sentience to assign value.
>
> Is that correct?
yes. But people _should_ generally value it less in favor of architecture.
> [@anonymous105](#):
>
> Also, my guess is that you do not think that non-human creatures have sufficient sentience to count for this discussion. So e.g. a bear that lives in a forest and eats salmon by a river could be said to “value” his territory. He will defend his forest and river from threats, he will prefer specific trees over other trees, he will choose specific locations or objects to prioritize. Many animal researchers would say he is is attributing value to those things in a bearlike way. But he isn’t making human-level decisions about the area or expressing value in a humanlike way. So my guess is that from your perspective those forms of value are invalid or don’t exist.
Yes. And even if bears did have some sort of moral significance it would be inferior to human values given our intelligence, creativity, rationality, free will, potential for greatness, etc.
> [@anonymous105](#):
>
> > [@ActiveMind](#):
> >
> > Nature serves us, it is only valuable as far it is of use to us.
>
> Nature doesn’t literally serve us, right?
Yes, it doesn’t act to serve us. The metaphor might be bad but it’s meant to portray how we position ourselves with respect to nature.
I forgot to add this part in the original post, but I don’t think nature is metaphysically bad. I think we live in wonderful world with great possibilities. Nature has coconuts to drink, animals to hunt and domesticate, and fossil fuels to get energy. Nature doesn’t actually serve these things, but they are there for out taking.
It’s more than just the material we can use. The universe is also a logical place we can understand rationally. It lets us discover mathematics and create art.
I think nature can be beautiful too, it’s just that human creations can always surpass it. When I do find parts of nature beautiful I usually think it’s a fundamentally benevolent universe we live in.
> [@anonymous105](#):
>
> There actually are currently limits to both our desire and our ability, right?
Ability yes, but our desire is unlimited. You can read about it in BoI or in the section “The Limitless Need and Desire for Wealth” in George Reisman’s _Capitalism_. Fundamentally it is due to our creativeness that we can always pursue new ends.
> [@anonymous105](#):
>
> Is this like an aspirational metaphorical kinda statement? Like, maybe one day we will do that?
“we will conquer it all” is definitely metaphorical and aspirational.
> [@anonymous105](#):
>
> So purposeless chance can create something that persists for millions of years, but active purposeful reason can’t do that (yet).
>
> I’m not attributing value here, just pointing out a fact pattern. But can you imagine why that fact pattern might give people some kind of perspective when they contemplate nature? Or why it might make them feel… small?
Sure. I don’t think that’s a significant difference compared to our capability of reason, creativity, valuing, etc. And the “(yet)” matters too. We are currently making things that are designed to last long into the future past possible civilizational collapse for future archeologists:
[Preserving Text For The Year 5000 - Ben Landau-Taylor](https://www.benlandautaylor.com/p/preserving-text-for-the-year-5000)
> [@anonymous105](#):
>
> > [@ActiveMind](#):
> >
> > > And then people tell me about pilgrimages to some dank pesthole in a jungle where they go to do homage to a crumbling temple, to a leering stone monster with a pot belly, created by some leprous savage. Is it beauty and genius they want to see?
>
> I know Rand wrote this, not you, but you are endorsing it, yeah?
Yes.
> [@anonymous105](#):
>
> I thought that it was human sentience that created value. No? But ancient structures made by humans were valued by humans, right? So those things _did_ have value, at least at some point, by your lights. Right?
>
> It seems kind of weird to be so harsh towards people that came before at the same time that you are talking about humans creating value.
Objectively they had negative value despite those people think they had positive value. Actually I can’t know it for certain, we’re not even talking about some specific statue. At the time it might have inspired greater values than if it wasn’t there. But there were also significant bad parts about it, in the ancient time too. What it means to modern people and it’s very questionable why they would like it and prefer it over other art.
> [@anonymous105](#):
>
> This makes me think maybe my guess was wrong, you don’t think value is attributed by humans.
Not subjectively.
> [@anonymous105](#):
>
> Maybe you think value is some quality that is derived some other way?
It is derived from the relation between reality and humans. It can be analyzed objectively by third parties.
> [@anonymous105](#):
>
> Such that modern creations have it, but ancient ones do not?
Modernistic art is bad (and sometimes not even art) and ancient greek art was good. On the whole.
> [@anonymous105](#):
>
> To the extent that humans have persisted for a long timescale (albeit very small compared to nature) why would it be wrong for humans to look back on ancient creations with interest?
“Interest” is too general for what I was talking about. You can definitely have rational historical interest in it. The problem lies in viewing it as superior spiritually, artistically, philosophically and morally.
> [@anonymous105](#):
>
> > [@ActiveMind](#):
> >
> > But free will means responsibility and is a double-edge sword. Whereas nature can do no wrong and is simply as it is, humans can do wrong and cause ourselves harm. We have to choose what to create, whether we should create statues of a “leering stone monster with a pot belly” and soviet style life-depriving apartment blocks, or whether we should create statues depicting men as the greek viewed their gods and proud skyscrapers reaching unabashedly for sky. We have to choose to aim for greatness and counter depravity.
>
> So is the issue with the ancient statues that they are bad art? Like they aren’t appealing to your aesthetic?
They are bad art according to objective aesthetic criteria and they portray negative values.
> [@anonymous105](#):
>
> Is it okay to travel to a crumbling temple as long as that crumbling temple is _not_ in a “dank pesthole” in the jungle and does not feature a “leering stone monster with a pot belly” then?
>
> Like, if the crumbling temple is in a European climate and features a stone depiction that fits with Western European aesthetics, then would that be okay and not a form of depravity?
It is okay for historical purposes for example.
The European climate is an unimportant detail. Western European aesthetics stemming from Greece, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, Romanticism and probably more, has lots of objectively good qualities, where as Western European modernistic aesthetics has very little value.
---
### Author:  [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)
#### Post date: [October 10, 2026, 12:58am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/why-buildings-are-greater-than-nature-the-fountainhead/2247/4 "2026-10-10T00:58:16Z")
Wynand:
> “It’s interesting to speculate on the reasons that make men so anxious to debase themselves. As in that idea of feeling small before nature. It’s not a bromide, it’s practically an institution. Have you noticed how self-righteous a man sounds when he tells you about it? Look, he seems to say, I’m so glad to be a pigmy, that’s how virtuous I am. Have you heard with what delight people quote some great celebrity who’s proclaimed that he’s not so great when he looks at Niagara Falls? It’s as if they were smacking their lips in sheer glee that their best is dust before the brute force of an earthquake. As if they were sprawling on all fours, rubbing their foreheads in the mud to the majesty of a hurricane. But that’s not the spirit that leashed fire, steam, electricity, that crossed oceans in sailing sloops, that built airplanes and dams … and skyscrapers. What is it they fear? What is it they hate so much, those who love to crawl? And why?”
>
> “When I find the answer to that,” she said, “I’ll make my peace with the world.”
They fear being confronted with their own immorality and insignificance in contrast with someone like Roark. They fear the responsibility of independent thought and being held to the standard of integrity.
---
### Author:  [@anonymous105](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous105)
#### Post date: [October 10, 2026, 1:56am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/why-buildings-are-greater-than-nature-the-fountainhead/2247/5 "2026-10-10T01:56:24Z")
> [@ActiveMind](#):
>
> Sure some people might mean it literally sometimes, but most what they’re talking about when they say this is that they feel philosophically unimportant.
Can you give some examples of this?
I don’t think that is the common meaning when people go out into nature and say that the scope of the natural world makes them feel small. But perhaps I’m ignorant of the examples you have in mind.
It also might depend on what you mean when you say “philosophically unimportant.” I can think of one example that might sound like philosophical unimportance to you (and Rand?) but I would disagree with that summary.
So it might be that what I am describing _is_ what you and Rand are talking about, but I disagree about the underlying meaning. Or maybe I disagree about what people typically mean. I dunno, I’ll wait for examples instead of guessing more.
> [@ActiveMind](#):
>
> > [@anonymous105](#):
> >
> > > [@ActiveMind](#):
> > >
> > > Nature as such is of no value, because it wouldn’t be of value to anyone.
> >
> > What does this sentence mean?
>
> That nature doesn’t have intrinsic value.
Is that _actually_ what that sentence means? Like, grammatically? I understand that is what you meant, which is helpful to the discussion. But to me this sentence still doesn’t make much sense. My guess as to what you meant was correct though (I just guessed from context, I don’t think it was too hard to guess.)
> [@ActiveMind](#):
>
> That nature doesn’t have intrinsic value. Things can only be of value to humans (or AGI). Some types of environmentalists (both progressive and conservative) value wilderness for its own sake, without regard to what value it has to humans. It’s possible for wilderness to be of value to humans, but that’s a different thing.
If someone values wilderness “for its own sake”, and that “someone” is a human, then couldn’t you also describe that as the wilderness being “of value to humans” — like, isn’t that literally what it is?
Humans value it, ergo it is of value to humans.
My guess is that you think those people have wrong values. If someone has wrong values, does that mean that the thing they value actually has no value to humans? How do you determine when someone is wrong for valuing something? Do you spend a lot of time studying why humans _say_ they value wilderness to determine if they are valuing it for good reasons? Or do you have a good heuristic that lets you make these judgements quickly on a mass scale?
> [@ActiveMind](#):
>
> yes. But people should generally value it less in favor of architecture.
Why?
Should people _always_ value things made with human creativity over things that occur naturally?
> [@ActiveMind](#):
>
> Yes. And even if bears did have some sort of moral significance it would be inferior to human values given our intelligence, creativity, rationality, free will, potential for greatness, etc.
If a human has greater “intelligence, creativity, rationality, free will, potential for greatness” than another human, does that mean they are of more moral significance? Does that mean their values are superior to other humans? Or does this distinction only exist between humans and hypothetical morally-significant bears?
> [@ActiveMind](#):
>
> I think nature can be beautiful too, it’s just that human creations can always surpass it.
_Can_ always surpass it? _Do_ they always surpass it? If sometimes they don’t (like maybe ugly statues made by leprous savages don’t surpass nature?) then what criteria do you use to evaluate if a human creation has surpassed nature?
> [@ActiveMind](#):
>
> > [@anonymous105](#):
> >
> > > [@ActiveMind](#):
> > >
> > > And there is no limit to our desire or ability, we will conquer it all.
> >
> > There actually are currently limits to both our desire and our ability, right?
>
> Ability yes, but our desire is unlimited. You can read about it in BoI or in the section “The Limitless Need and Desire for Wealth” in George Reisman’s Capitalism. Fundamentally it is due to our creativeness that we can always pursue new ends.
Do those people say that we currently have no limits to our desires? Or that we have no _theoretical_ limits to our desires?
Maybe I’m parsing the words poorly. To me, saying there is no limit to our desire could imply just that there is no theoretical limit, but alongside the rest of the statement I took it as a statement of the current state of our desires. I think current desires are typically limited by what the desiring person can currently imagine. People 1,000 years ago had similarly unlimited desires hypothetically, but I think lots of stuff exists now they _never_ desired because they never imagined those things could exist.
So to me, that would be an example of a limit of our current desires.
> [@ActiveMind](#):
>
> We are currently making things that are designed to last long into the future past possible civilizational collapse for future archeologists:
> [Preserving Text For The Year 5000 - Ben Landau-Taylor](https://www.benlandautaylor.com/p/preserving-text-for-the-year-5000)
Yeah, that’s really cool.
We have also considered ways to design things that last a long time and communicate danger in universal ways in case future people have lost our languages. The reason we are considering this is because human creativity has discovered/invented things that can be uniquely invisibly dangerous if those things were discovered in the far future by ignorant explorers. It’s pretty interesting. [This is not a place of honor.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_nuclear_waste_warning_messages)
I think there is lots of interesting stuff to be learned from history, and from pondering how future historians will learn about us.
> [@ActiveMind](#):
>
> Objectively they had negative value despite those people think they had positive value. Actually I can’t know it for certain, we’re not even talking about some specific statue. At the time it might have inspired greater values than if it wasn’t there. But there were also significant bad parts about it, in the ancient time too
Do you just mean because, in general, ancient people knew less and did more irrational things than modern people? Or is there something specific you have in mind?
> [@ActiveMind](#):
>
> What it means to modern people and it’s very questionable why they would like it and prefer it over other art.
I think you have a typo in here, or changed your idea for the sentence partway through.
But setting that aside: why do you think people who find it interesting or fulfilling to visit ancient ruins would _prefer_ ancient art over other art? Maybe they just found it interesting. Does the Rand quote imply that they find the potbellied statue made by leprous savages _preferable_ to all other art?
> [@ActiveMind](#):
>
> > [@anonymous105](#):
> >
> > This makes me think maybe my guess was wrong, you don’t think value is attributed by humans.
>
> Not subjectively.
So, I understand that we’re discussing Rand so there is like an Objectivism/subjectivity dichotomy in your mind here.
Where, if anywhere, does something like _context_ fit into that? You don’t think art has subjective value. So I’m guessing you think it has objective value. Is that value contextual, or does its objective value transcend any consideration of context?
I’m asking a lot of questions so I will just comment on my own opinion here: I think context is important. I think that objective truth exists because we can consider context. Without context, I am not confident that objective truth exists. So any time an Objectivist ignores/disregards context, my guess is that they will be wrong and probably saying things that are significantly worse than like… the average mainstream “relativist” type of opinion.
(Note: I made an edit to the above paragraph to soften one claim a bit.)
> [@ActiveMind](#):
>
> > [@anonymous105](#):
> >
> > Maybe you think value is some quality that is derived some other way?
>
> It is derived from the relation between reality and humans. It can be analyzed objectively by third parties.
Can you give examples? Maybe this will give me the missing context.
> [@ActiveMind](#):
>
> > [@anonymous105](#):
> >
> > Such that modern creations have it, but ancient ones do not?
>
> Modernistic art is bad (and sometimes not even art) and ancient greek art was good. On the whole.
Why?
> [@ActiveMind](#):
>
> > [@anonymous105](#):
> >
> > To the extent that humans have persisted for a long timescale (albeit very small compared to nature) why would it be wrong for humans to look back on ancient creations with interest?
>
> “Interest” is too general for what I was talking about. You can definitely have rational historical interest in it. The problem lies in viewing it as superior spiritually, artistically, philosophically and morally.
Did the Rand quote imply that someone was viewing it as superior? Where/how did it do that?
> [@ActiveMind](#):
>
> > [@anonymous105](#):
> >
> > So is the issue with the ancient statues that they are bad art? Like they aren’t appealing to your aesthetic?
>
> They are bad art according to objective aesthetic criteria and they portray negative values.
What criteria? What negative values?
> [@ActiveMind](#):
>
> The European climate is an unimportant detail. Western European aesthetics stemming from Greece, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, Romanticism and probably more, has lots of objectively good qualities, where as Western European modernistic aesthetics has very little value.
Then why did the quote describe it as:
> some dank pesthole in a jungle where they go to do homage to a crumbling temple, to a leering stone monster with a pot belly, created by some leprous savage.
These are specific details in the passage. Those details evoke specific kinds of climate, culture, and people. They were chosen for a reason, right? You chose this quote because you liked it, right? And you followed it up using the word “depravity”, right?
I think there is a weird and disturbing element to that part of the quote. I do not think it is a coincidence that the bad thing is described as being in a jungle full of pests, that the statue is leering, or that the people who made it are leprous savages. I think there is a pretty clear racial/cultural othering that is happening in that part of the quote.
I am not saying that this is something you identified and agreed with. I am not trying to accuse you of any particular wrongdoing. But I think maybe it is worth considering what went into those word choices (both Rand’s and yours.)
---
### Author:  [@anonymous105](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous105)
#### Post date: [October 10, 2026, 2:01am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/why-buildings-are-greater-than-nature-the-fountainhead/2247/6 "2026-10-10T02:01:04Z")
> As in that idea of feeling small before nature. It’s not a bromide, it’s practically an institution. Have you noticed how self-righteous a man sounds when he tells you about it? Look, he seems to say, I’m so glad to be a pigmy, that’s how virtuous I am. Have you heard with what delight people quote some great celebrity who’s proclaimed that he’s not so great when he looks at Niagara Falls? It’s as if they were smacking their lips in sheer glee that their best is dust before the brute force of an earthquake. As if they were sprawling on all fours, rubbing their foreheads in the mud to the majesty of a hurricane.
Just to be extra clear, I disagree with this summary of what people mean when they say they feel small before nature. I think this is an uncharitable description that the people who use that phrase would probably _not_ agree with.
But I already asked for examples of people that do mean this kind of thing. I asked for those in my last post, so I will wait for your reply.
---
### Author:  [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)
#### Post date: [October 10, 2026, 10:01am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/why-buildings-are-greater-than-nature-the-fountainhead/2247/7 "2026-10-10T10:01:30Z")
> [@anonymous105](#):
>
> > [@ActiveMind](#):
> >
> > So is the issue with the ancient statues that they are bad art? Like they aren’t appealing to your aesthetic?
> >
> > They are bad art according to objective aesthetic criteria and they portray negative values.
>
> What criteria? What negative values?
This misquote is likely cause by a bug. Can you edit it?
---
### Author:  [@anonymous105](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous105)
#### Post date: [October 10, 2026, 12:01pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/why-buildings-are-greater-than-nature-the-fountainhead/2247/8 "2026-10-10T12:01:41Z")
Yeah, fixed.
---
### Author:  [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)
#### Post date: [October 10, 2026, 4:12pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/why-buildings-are-greater-than-nature-the-fountainhead/2247/9 "2026-10-10T16:12:59Z")
Have you read The Fountainhead?
---
### Author:  [@anonymous105](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous105)
#### Post date: [October 10, 2026, 4:29pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/why-buildings-are-greater-than-nature-the-fountainhead/2247/10 "2026-10-10T16:29:12Z")
Yep. Been a while though. I enjoyed it.