Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

1. Like any fundamental principle, this principle does require considerable context to grasp and disciplined application to master. Sullivan’s writings provide a large range of examples of such application.

2. You are right that a major value of the principle is that it exhorts one to confine one’s attention to the facts of reality giving rise to the problem–eschewing all arbitrary ideas. As most of the ideas in the field of humanities are arbitrary, it sweeps the mind clean of this massive historical debris enabling one to look at the problem first-hand.

3. In addition to the above, Sullivan is arguing for a method of systematically, patiently and hierarchically limiting a problem to arrive at its solution. I am planning a post showing how “The Father of Skyscraper” solved the problem of skyscraper design using this principle–which wonderfully illustrates the power of this principle. It is based on Sullivan’s essay “The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered” which is included in the Dover edition of Kindergarten Chats.

4. The principle is a general orientation towards issues and always applies–the complexity or straightforwardness of its application depends on the complexity or straightforwardness of problem at hand.

The phrase “form follows function” is explanatory and captures the idea being referenced: identify the fundamental issues and tailor processes to the nature of the primaries involved. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.” Whether designing buildings or educating children, first understand the functioning and goals of those who will use it. Observe actual physical and psychological functioning, not the Bible, Quran, or Psychology Today.

The required process is to refine one’s focus by more precisely defining problems, limiting the scope of considerations and solutions. That is, focus on the child’s needs, not society’s needs for the child – and the result will be a better functioning society. Is that Sullivan’s (and/or Rand’s) position? Always applies straightforwardly, or more of a general orientation toward issues?

Valuable food for thought in any case.

The idea that a problem contains its own solution is Sullivan’s idea. Ayn Rand discovered Sullivan and his ideas during her research on The Fountainhead, directly and through the writings of Sullivan’s student, Frank Lloyd Wright. I am sure she learnt the idea through Sullivan. she paid the ultimate complement to Sullivan by adopting Sullivan’s ideas about architecture as Howard Roark’s ideas on architecture, culminating in “Form follows Function.”

I know Ayn Rand read Kindergarten Chats, and I wonder if she got that insight from Louis Sullivan.

You are right, the statement is too telegrammatic–in fact the student to whom he is presenting this discourse has exactly the same complaint as yours:

“You have the singular habit of assuming, when you suddenly make a compact statement, novel in character, that I am capable of digesting it at once. I am puzzling over your statement–I can’t see that a problem contains its solution; still less that it suggests it… It is not self-evident to me. My training tended the other way. And yet the suggestion excites my vivid curiosity. It sounds neat if nothing more.”

Sullivan presents his idea of “A problem contains and suggests its own solution.” in the following section, which I will cover in my next post.

Love!

I am eagerly awaiting the second and third parts.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/atlas-shrugged-producer-promises-two-182714

The Contradiction or stumbling block of Rand’s philosophy, the philosophy of Objectivism is found in her metaphysics. Rand proves an objective reality that includes volition, which is not so easily proven.

After spending weeks on an objective validation of the existence of volition, and finally satisfied that this was possible, the need remained to examine the nature of volition, and particularly as it is distinguishable from or in the context of objective reality. To this day, and to my knowledge, the adherents of Objectivism have never explored or discussed this in sufficient depth.

Using a computer software metaphor, it’s as though the main menu included metaphysics, and the metaphysics menu included objective reality and volition, but when volition was punched in, nothing came up on the menu.

What I want to point out here is that, not only does morality hang on the existence of volition, but theology as well. For my part, I could not escape the parallels between the classical attributes of God, and the attributes of volition, even by Objectivist standards.

Ignoring for the moment the difficulties of quantum physics, objective reality is like balls on a billiard table – they have no choice, no volition. Non-contradictory volition, on the other hand, has the power of an irresistible force as well as an immovable object. It is just here that the line between the dust and the divine becomes blurred.

Clarity begins to be possible when we begin to understand this that was written before Rand came along, namely that man was made in the image of God.

Once we get this matter of Rand’s contradiction resolved it becomes possible to see, appreciate, and embrace what Rand brings to the table where our need to understand human liberty is concerned. It is in understanding her contradiction that we discover why so many of her followers, including Rand herself made a train wreck out of human relationships, especially the relationship of marriage.

Culture runs deep, deeper than the language that survives it, and the translations into new language, new forms. The depth of Atlas Shrugged cannot survive the translation into film, yet the film has its own value. Nietzsche spent years to try to open a window into the Greek sense of life, with mixed results. I am pleased at every honest attempt to bridge people into the Ayn Rand sense of life, like the movie. As a copy, its fidelity can be questioned. As a invitation, it is promising in the best sense – it promises much more than it can deliver. It is sexy like that – promising more if you will take the time to win it through the act/active seduction – effort on the part of the audience. Roman to Greek…

A great prioject on which you’ve embarked here. It’s inspired me to get out my old copy of KC.

In my copy however, it is this department store that LS calls “The Imperial Hotel”–or at least the Imperial Hotel’s long-lost child. “I say it’s a hotel. You may think it a department store, if you will.” [Chapter V, "An Hotel"]

I imagined the building he talked about in Chapter XI, “A Department Store,” to be his own Carson Pirie Scott Building.–although the particular “small-minded” building to which he refers is unnamed.