Dagny and the Guard


BaalChatzaf

Recommended Posts

If Dragonfly is in fact calling Rand and advocate of mass murder of people we might find to be 'sub human' or not worthy of existence, then I have no problems calling him retarded, and I am surprised anyone here would, especially in light of his clinging to this ridiculous interpretation disregarding every thing else of Rand. Rand's entire life is a testament to abhorring such a thing. If he is insincere in his belief, he is nothing more than a troll, if he is sincere, then he is in fact retarded unless of course after this further discussion he would like to withdraw the claim that Rand is an advocate of wholesale slaughter, in which case he would demonstrate intellectual honesty and his purpose in this forum - to discuss and develop ideas. The onus is on Dragonfly, all he need to is simply defend his position, acknowledge this 'interpretation' was too quick and needed some rethinking, or admit to being a troll. No doubt he will instead just continue to whine

I draw attention to the word starting the paragraph above, viz., "If."

A question, Matus: Are you acknowledging, with that "if," that you may have all along been misreading Dragonfly, that he was NOT "in fact calling Rand and advocate of mass murder [...]"? Hence that it's your charges which have been "too quick" and which "[need] some rethinking"?

Well, Ellen, I guess all I have to say to your questions is that your post is just far too long, too repetitive, too eyesight-killingly deadly to read to be something I want to answer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 225
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Dagny gave the guy a chance to get out of her way. She didn't have to but she did. This was simply one human being to another and that was the value judgment. He chose poorly, so another value judgment entered (comparing Galt against any chance of risk from the undecided). From that lens, she simply turned the undecided risk into the decided non-risk and went to get the man she loved.

Sorry I'm coming in late to this discussion, but...

I just reread the scene in which Dagny confronts the guard, and I don't see her as trying to give him a chance to get out of the way. It would be unrealistic to think that she would've let the guard live if he had suddenly chosen to let her to pass after she drew her gun and refused to allow him to contact his superiors. Obviously she would have had to worry about him warning others. She would have had to kill him regardless of what he decided (or didn't decide). So the scene comes across as Dagny wasting time tormenting the guard with a stupid morality lesson after her bluff of posing as a superior had obviously failed. Messing with his mind seems to be a higher priority than saving Galt, so the whole situation is just way too cold for the behavior of someone who's supposed to be a good person who is heroically trying to save someone she cares about.

The thing that makes it most uncomfortable to me is that there is nothing to indicate that the guard "wanted to exist without the responsibility of consciousness," as Rand tells us in her role as narrator. Guards are trained to obey orders and to follow procedures -- that's their job -- while trying to be respectful and somewhat accommodating of superiors and VIPs. The guard was absolutely correct in saying, "I'm only obeying orders! It's not up to me!" and "I'm not ~supposed~ to decide!" and in insisting (twice) on referring the matter of conflicting orders to his "chief."

Also, I think we can safely assume that the guard would have had no knowledge of what his superiors were doing behind closed doors, so it's not as if Dagny could reasonably assume that he was guilty of anything, or that he knew that he was protecting others who were guilty of something. In that context, it could even be said that Dagny was initiating a threat of physical force against him, and knowingly placing him in an impossible situation. Her lack of remorse about killing him therefore comes across as very anti-heroic.

The scene makes me wonder what Rand would expect any employee, assistant or inferior to do when confronted with conflicting orders or threats of initiatory force. And when putting someone in that situation, shouldn't a good human being feel more than what they feel when they "fire at an animal"?

What if:

You were employed as a guard by Taggart Transcontinental, and Dagny has ordered you to not let anyone into a warehouse in Colorado in which she's set up a temporary office. Then along comes industry giant and semi-celebrity Orren Boyle barking at you and informing you that Dagny requested that he come to her makeshift office. You politely ask Boyle to wait while you check if Dagny will meet with him. Boyle pulls a gun and tells you that he won't allow you to check with Dagny. He says that you must decide for yourself. You must either let him pass, or he will shoot you. You think that, with the fact that he's waving a gun in your face, he's probably planning on doing something bad. You have no chance of getting to your gun before he shoots you. You suspect that if you let him pass, he'll probably shoot you anyway since he knows you'll come after him or alert other guards. Then he keeps demanding that your decide, which you think is very odd and scary behavior.

If you tell him that you're just a little guy and that you're only doing your job and obeying orders, does that mean that you want "to exist without the responsibility of consciousness"? If you're submissive or indecisive while a nutjob is pointing a gun in your face and demanding that you make what appears to be an irrelevant decision, are you sub-human and worthy of less respect than an animal?

J

Edited by Jonathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do some of you really think the guard had only the problem of being unable to make up his mind and that that's why Dagny shot him? Have you never heard the guard's words before? He said: "I'm only a little fellow!! I'm only obeying orders! It's not up to me!" I'm only obeying orders. It's not up to me. Those are the words of every Nazi, of every concentration camp guard, of every engineer who drove a train carrying the doomed to death camps, of every ugly excuse for a human being who tried to justify his silent acquiescence to the worst horrors in history. And when the guard said, "Why me?" -- Dagny, "who would have hesitated to fire at an animal, fired straight at the heart of a man who had wanted to exist without the responsibiity of consciousness."

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her lack of remorse about killing him therefore comes across as very anti-heroic.

Jonathan,

If you had not already read Atlas Shrugged, I would say to you, "You think that's something? In the same book, you should see what happens after she bangs Hank Rearden. I wouldn't call talking the dude's ear off till he cried uncle very heroic either. But in AS land, she even got him to do the same!"

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do some of you really think the guard had only the problem of being unable to make up his mind and that that's why Dagny shot him? Have you never heard the guard's words before? He said: "I'm only a little fellow!! I'm only obeying orders! It's not up to me!" I'm only obeying orders. It's not up to me. Those are the words of every Nazi, of every concentration camp guard, of every engineer who drove a train carrying the doomed to death camps, of every ugly excuse for a human being who tried to justify his silent acquiescence to the worst horrors in history. And when the guard said, "Why me?" -- Dagny, "who would have hesitated to fire at an animal, fired straight at the heart of a man who had wanted to exist without the responsibiity of consciousness."

Barbara

If I've missed of forgotten something in AS which hints that the guard knew that his superiors were torturing Galt, or that Rand was alluding to Nazis and those who obey the orders of those hellbent on committing genocide, I'll gladly change my view of the scene. As I read it though, it simply seemed that Dagny was expecting a guard to not follow the standard procedures that guards are trained and hired to follow. If earlier in the book the guard had been presented as, say, laughing while gossiping with a fellow guard about what the big wigs were doing to Galt, and Dagny witnessed the guards' disgusting discussion, I wouldn't have a problem with the scene in which she confronts the guard.

I took the line about the guard being a "man who had wanted to exist without the responsibility of consciousness" to be something of a summary of the scene so far, and not as additional descriptive information as to his character or general thinking habits outside of being a guard. Maybe that's where we're seeing it differently. If Rand meant it that way, then she seems to have momentarily deviated from her own artistic preference of showing rather than telling.

J

Edited by Jonathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her lack of remorse about killing him therefore comes across as very anti-heroic.

Jonathan,

If you had not already read Atlas Shrugged, I would say to you, "You think that's something? In the same book, you should see what happens after she bangs Hank Rearden. I wouldn't call talking the dude's ear off till he cried uncle very heroic either. But in AS land, she even got him to do the same!"

:)

Michael

I don't know what Rand's intentions were with the scene, but to me it comes across as forced and much too cold. Dagny seems to step out of character in that moment. To me the guard scene is nothing like Dagny's talking Rearden's ear off after sex. The post-sex chatterbox stuff is unrealistic and romanticized, but it's not chilling.

Edited by Jonathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do some of you really think the guard had only the problem of being unable to make up his mind and that that's why Dagny shot him? Have you never heard the guard's words before? He said: "I'm only a little fellow!! I'm only obeying orders! It's not up to me!" I'm only obeying orders. It's not up to me. Those are the words of every Nazi, of every concentration camp guard, of every engineer who drove a train carrying the doomed to death camps, of every ugly excuse for a human being who tried to justify his silent acquiescence to the worst horrors in history. And when the guard said, "Why me?" -- Dagny, "who would have hesitated to fire at an animal, fired straight at the heart of a man who had wanted to exist without the responsibiity of consciousness."

Barbara

If I've missed of forgotten something in AS which hints that the guard knew that his superiors were torturing Galt, or that Rand was alluding to Nazis and those who obey the orders of those hellbent on committing genocide, I'll gladly change my view of the scene.

No, there is no reason to think the guard knew his superiors were torturing Galt. Nor was Rand necessarily alluding specifically to Nazis, although I suspect that's who she had in mind. But she clearly was referring to those who mindlessly obey orders -- any orders -- who obey them without question because they believe it is not their responsibility to think, to question, or to have any convictions about good and evil.

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I repeat what I and others have said before. I have no problem with the actions Dagny takes. The guard was part of a criminal conspiracy. The fact that it was the government doesn't make less of a conspiracy.

I wish someone would comment on the Think Twice problem which I mentioned in an earlier post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matus said that DF says that Rand advocated "mass murder." If he did it wasn't on this thread. That's just an inference. I just reviewed all of DF's posts on this thread.

--Brant

Brant, Dragonfly said the following:

rescue of Galt is only used as an excuse to show that someone who cannot choose is not worth to live, she might hesitate to kill an animal, but she doesn't hesitate such an Untermensch ... such Untermenschen should be exterminated

As she wrote in We the Living: "What are your masses but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?". She really did mean it.

He has said explicitly that Rand thought it was OK to exterminate the 'Untermensch' and that by this quote from WTL she was saying that the masses exist as mud to be ground underfoot and fuel burned for those who deserve it. That is him saying "She really did mean it" I don't see how to interpret this in any other manner, he is pretty clear. But Dragonfly can always jump in and clarify this point, I've raised it a few times, and he has not once claimed this is not actually what he thinks - because it is his whole point in focusing on this issue, he thinks Rand is an advocate of callous mass murder. But Dragonfly is welcome to clarify what exactly he meant by saying Rand 'really did mean the masses are mud to be ground underfoot or fuel to be burned for those who deserve it'

Edited by Matus1976
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do some of you really think the guard had only the problem of being unable to make up his mind and that that's why Dagny shot him? Have you never heard the guard's words before? He said: "I'm only a little fellow!! I'm only obeying orders! It's not up to me!"

Well, that is a problem with art, bringing the creator's intentions to the perceiver's mind. We perceive based on the sum total of our experience. I have reason to believe that we are genetically determined to be individuals. So, at some level, it takes dialog, not monologue, to bring a meeting of the minds, the attribute that the Romans called "Concordia" and the Greeks called "Homonoia."

To me, it was precisely the guard's refusal to make a choice. I have always believed that if he had refused to move and challenged her to shoot him -- "You got the drop on me, lady, but if you want to get past me, you're going to have to pull the trigger. I have my orders." -- she might have shot him or hit him in the head and tied him up, as,in fact, other guards were tied up when she got inside. But instead, he was frozen with indecision. So, she decided for him.

The idea that you do not obey orders within a social context of hierarchy, bureaucracy or military is interesting. I just finished a class in anthropology and most of what most people do in most times and places is mostly repetition without question. That said, however, these "other" people are not "primitive savages." They are as "modern" as you or I, but they have different artifacts. In one report, the anthropologist (young woman) is discussing Hamlet with a group of tribal elders (old guys). It gets pretty philosophical. And they challenge her on points that she cannot defend: these "primitives" so not believe in ghosts. These people are as capable of subtle insight, as is, anyone here on OL. That said, it remains that we all tend to take most of our lives as granted to us by our social context. The more you question, the wierder you become and less other people want to do with you.

In our social context, we objectivists, like scientologists or mormons, have enough of our own kind around that we can find someone to talk to. Even so, we here have all also had the personal experience of meeting other people with whom honest discourse is far more profitable than among our nominal peer group.

The point is well-known. Police officers in the old days got it by "osmosis." Today, we make classroom subject matter out of "police discretion." Police officers are trained to work on their own. There are gains and losses from that. Firemen always work in teams. Again, there are benefits and costs -- firemen die in groups. So, too, with the military: they are trained in teamwork. Officers carry sidearms specifically to shoot soldiers who will not obey orders.

To Max Weber, the Prussian bureaucracy was a model of industrial age efficiency for all of its virtues. For one thing, being impersonal, bureaucracies were immune to favoritism. Every citizen gets the same service. Being structured moved the work forward from desk to desk. Punctuality, of course, was learned in the classroom. "I was only following orders!" was not to them a negation of responsibility, but their proof that they had taken their responsibilities seriously. We Americans hear those words differently, of course.

Our amies have always had a problem with people walking away. Abraham Lincoln served his six weeks and left in the middle of a war. Andrew Jackson earned the name "Old Hickory" when he paid with his own money to bring his troops home to Tennessee from western Florida: as far as Congress was concerned, they were all dismissed and free to do as they pleased 300 miles from home. We Americans have yet to learn the virtues of responsible organization... which is probably alll to the better...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Note that it does not say and nowhere on that page does it suggest that she shot him BECAUSE of that. If so, she would have had to shoot half the staff of Taggart Transcontinental.

Well, I think that by the end of the book, her attitude on that might have changed. ;)

Besides, there was more at stake here than in the office, though, of course, also in the office, lives are at risk though we do not perceive that. Even in something seemingly as removed from physical reality as financial markets, the matter comes down to life and death. When I held a real estate license, one of my mentors had retired from nursing. When people got upset he would remind them that no one was dying here. That is true. Yet, of course, money is made wealth is created from the time of our lives by virtue of our reason. Finance is (ultimately) a matter of life and death.

When a sales clerk blows me off to get rid of me so she can go back to doing nothing for her money, my frustration is not just for my own loss -- I go elsewhere with my money though at some loss of time and effort here -- but for the loss she brings to her employer. Absolute objective justice demands a penalty less than death for that. Rand said that isolated on an island you need morality more than in a city. The sales clerk -- the staff of Taggart Transontinental, the guard -- can offload their immorality to others. By the end of Atlas Shrugged, that surplus has been consumed.

Dagny is there to save the life of the man she loves, whom she regards not only as her own highest ideal but to her the standard for life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matus said that DF says that Rand advocated "mass murder." If he did it wasn't on this thread. That's just an inference. I just reviewed all of DF's posts on this thread.

--Brant

Brant, Dragonfly said the following:

rescue of Galt is only used as an excuse to show that someone who cannot choose is not worth to live, she might hesitate to kill an animal, but she doesn't hesitate such an Untermensch ... such Untermenschen should be exterminated

As she wrote in We the Living: "What are your masses but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?". She really did mean it.

He has said explicitly that Rand thought it was OK to exterminate the 'Untermensch' and that by this quote from WTL she was saying that the masses exist as mud to be ground underfoot and fuel burned for those who deserve it. That is him saying "She really did mean it" I don't see how to interpret this in any other manner, he is pretty clear. But Dragonfly can always jump in and clarify this point, I've raised it a few times, and he has not once claimed this is not actually what he thinks - because it is his whole point in focusing on this issue, he thinks Rand is an advocate of callous mass murder. But Dragonfly is welcome to clarify what exactly he meant by saying Rand 'really did mean the masses are mud to be ground underfoot or fuel to be burned for those who deserve it'

Matus, this is really irritating; you gave a DF quote with no reference. How am I supposed to integrate this into our discussion? I'm not questioning the quote per se but I won't respond to your post as such without the reference.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matus, this is really irritating; you gave a DF quote with no reference. How am I supposed to integrate this into our discussion? I'm not questioning the quote per se but I won't respond to your post as such without the reference.

--Brant

Brant, this is irritating, I thought you said you reviewed every post he made?

I'll do it again.

In post 52 Dragonfly writes

What is obvious (and what is also made very clear in the whole preceding dialogue) is that by not being able to choose the man forfeited his right to live, he is less than an animal, he is an Untermensch. That animals don't have the rights that humans have does not mean that you can just kill any animal that you encounter in the street, so that comparison is also irrelevant. It is funny that it is only Bob K. and me who take Rand seriously and think that she did mean it. The Objectivists on this forum apparently think she's just writing here a scene like any third rate thriller writer. Well, we don't think so. She is conveying a philosophical and moral message in this passage and she couldn't have been more explicit ("he wanted to exist without the responsibility of consciousness").

In post 65 he writes (emphasis added)

As I wrote earlier: I wouldn't have any problem if Dagny had killed a dozen guards in a shoot-out to rescue Galt if that had been unavoidable (as might have happened in a real situation); that would have been a war-like situation, it's them or us. But in the book the rescue of Galt is only used as an excuse to show that someone who cannot choose is not worth to live, she might hesitate to kill an animal, but she doesn't hesitate such an Untermensch. The excuse of rescuing Galt is very thin, as she takes all the time to babble with the guard, who was obviously so confused and incompetent that he could very easily have been overpowered. But no, such Untermenschen should be exterminated. As she wrote in We the Living: "What are your masses but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?". She really did mean it.

I see no other rational interpretation to these statements besides his asserting that Rand is advocating killing 'worthless' people and that the masses are to be used up by the few worthy people. Keep in mind in all his objections he has never once objected to this interpretation of what he is saying, he has only ever objected to my calling this interpretation retarded and never objected to the interpretation itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matus, this is really irritating; you gave a DF quote with no reference. How am I supposed to integrate this into our discussion? I'm not questioning the quote per se but I won't respond to your post as such without the reference.

--Brant

Brant, this is irritating, I thought you said you reviewed every post he made?

I'll do it again.

In post 52 Dragonfly writes

What is obvious (and what is also made very clear in the whole preceding dialogue) is that by not being able to choose the man forfeited his right to live, he is less than an animal, he is an Untermensch. That animals don't have the rights that humans have does not mean that you can just kill any animal that you encounter in the street, so that comparison is also irrelevant. It is funny that it is only Bob K. and me who take Rand seriously and think that she did mean it. The Objectivists on this forum apparently think she's just writing here a scene like any third rate thriller writer. Well, we don't think so. She is conveying a philosophical and moral message in this passage and she couldn't have been more explicit ("he wanted to exist without the responsibility of consciousness").

In post 65 he writes (emphasis added)

As I wrote earlier: I wouldn't have any problem if Dagny had killed a dozen guards in a shoot-out to rescue Galt if that had been unavoidable (as might have happened in a real situation); that would have been a war-like situation, it's them or us. But in the book the rescue of Galt is only used as an excuse to show that someone who cannot choose is not worth to live, she might hesitate to kill an animal, but she doesn't hesitate such an Untermensch. The excuse of rescuing Galt is very thin, as she takes all the time to babble with the guard, who was obviously so confused and incompetent that he could very easily have been overpowered. But no, such Untermenschen should be exterminated. As she wrote in We the Living: "What are your masses but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?". She really did mean it.

I see no other rational interpretation to these statements besides his asserting that Rand is advocating killing 'worthless' people and that the masses are to be used up by the few worthy people. Keep in mind in all his objections he has never once objected to this interpretation of what he is saying, he has only ever objected to my calling this interpretation retarded and never objected to the interpretation itself.

My request for the reference was so I could understand that they came from this thread and so I could refer to them in case I thought they might need their original context.

In regard to these quotations I don't agree with DF's analysis. The problem is literalizing select material from a complex and prolific novelist and damning her with that which is quite unfair. The WTL quote might be a case of confusing something Kira said as being not only the character's actual view, debateable, but the author's at the time, again debateable. Mass murder and genocide is characteristic of totalitarian collectivists, not the 20th Century's leading advocate of individualism and freedom.

The withdrawal of the sanction of the victim is the keystone of Rand's work. The impotence of evil. Going on strike and letting the world go to its enevitable hell faster than otherwise and then starting over was not to de facto advocate mass murder. Ayn Rand stated that one reason for writing AS was to prevent a socialist America, not that people should quit, give up, withdraw, go on strike. AS was a warning. She was afraid, though, that countless Atlases were shrugging regardless, done in by an anti-life culture, political and otherwise.

---Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matus, this is really irritating; you gave a DF quote with no reference. How am I supposed to integrate this into our discussion? I'm not questioning the quote per se but I won't respond to your post as such without the reference.

--Brant

Brant, this is irritating, I thought you said you reviewed every post he made?

I'll do it again.

In post 52 Dragonfly writes

What is obvious (and what is also made very clear in the whole preceding dialogue) is that by not being able to choose the man forfeited his right to live, he is less than an animal, he is an Untermensch. That animals don't have the rights that humans have does not mean that you can just kill any animal that you encounter in the street, so that comparison is also irrelevant. It is funny that it is only Bob K. and me who take Rand seriously and think that she did mean it. The Objectivists on this forum apparently think she's just writing here a scene like any third rate thriller writer. Well, we don't think so. She is conveying a philosophical and moral message in this passage and she couldn't have been more explicit ("he wanted to exist without the responsibility of consciousness").

In post 65 he writes (emphasis added)

As I wrote earlier: I wouldn't have any problem if Dagny had killed a dozen guards in a shoot-out to rescue Galt if that had been unavoidable (as might have happened in a real situation); that would have been a war-like situation, it's them or us. But in the book the rescue of Galt is only used as an excuse to show that someone who cannot choose is not worth to live, she might hesitate to kill an animal, but she doesn't hesitate such an Untermensch. The excuse of rescuing Galt is very thin, as she takes all the time to babble with the guard, who was obviously so confused and incompetent that he could very easily have been overpowered. But no, such Untermenschen should be exterminated. As she wrote in We the Living: "What are your masses but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?". She really did mean it.

I see no other rational interpretation to these statements besides his asserting that Rand is advocating killing 'worthless' people and that the masses are to be used up by the few worthy people. Keep in mind in all his objections he has never once objected to this interpretation of what he is saying, he has only ever objected to my calling this interpretation retarded and never objected to the interpretation itself.

My request for the reference was so I could understand that they came from this thread and so I could refer to them in case I thought they might need their original context.

In regard to these quotations I don't agree with DF's analysis. The problem is literalizing select material from a complex and prolific novelist and damning her with that which is quite unfair. The WTL quote might be a case of confusing something Kira said as being not only the character's actual view, debateable, but the author's at the time, again debateable. Mass murder and genocide is characteristic of totalitarian collectivists, not the 20th Century's leading advocate of individualism and freedom.

The withdrawal of the sanction of the victim is the keystone of Rand's work. The impotence of evil. Going on strike and letting the world go to its enevitable hell faster than otherwise and then starting over was not to de facto advocate mass murder. Ayn Rand stated that one reason for writing AS was to prevent a socialist America, not that people should quit, give up, withdraw, go on strike. AS was a warning. She was afraid, though, that countless Atlases were shrugging regardless, done in by an anti-life culture, political and otherwise.

---Brant

"...Ayn Rand stated that one reason for writing AS was to prevent a socialist America,..." and how is that working out? Lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...Ayn Rand stated that one reason for writing AS was to prevent a socialist America,..." and how is that working out? Lol.

We still retain the outward form of a free market society. At best we are semi-free. That is true of any society with a government, at this time. The closest thing to a free capitalist society was Hong Kong before it went back to the Commies.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, there is no reason to think the guard knew his superiors were torturing Galt. Nor was Rand necessarily alluding specifically to Nazis, although I suspect that's who she had in mind. But she clearly was referring to those who mindlessly obey orders -- any orders -- who obey them without question because they believe it is not their responsibility to think, to question, or to have any convictions about good and evil.

But it's not as though Rand created a situation in which the guard was confronted with a realistic dilemma, or even a coherent one. He wasn't given a choice between good and evil. He had no idea why Dagny was there pointing a gun at him and demanding that he make a decision which, from his perspective, would have been irrelevant (since he had to assume that she was likely to kill him no matter what he did).

Apparently Rand felt that her readers would assume that the guard was in the same category of evil or wearisome characters whom she describes throughout the novel with similar language, or in whose mouths she puts similar words. The problem is that she doesn't show us -- or Dagny -- anything to indicate that the guard was anything but a man who was properly doing his job. He wasn't engaging in any evil actions or evading responsibility. In fact he was trying to be responsible, and even quite logical and reasonable, by attempting to resolve the conflict by following the typical procedure of accommodating a VIP by contacting "the chief."

For Dagny to judge the guard as sub-human because he says things that others, who are not guards, have said elsewhere in the novel ("it's not up to me" etc.) is actually kind of collectivistic. She judges him not based on his own actions and context, but on the general attitude of the society around her. She ignores the fact that the decisions are indeed not up to the guard. She might as well have demanded that Eddie Willers fire Jim Taggart, and then judge Eddie as sub-human scum when he, like others in the novel, says "That's not up to me, I'm just a little guy, I don't have that authority," ignoring that Eddie actually doesn't have the authority.

The entire scene is about Dagny intimidating and threatening the guard, and then judging him as sub-human because he doesn't think for himself when being bullied and having a gun pointed in his face. "I order you to think for yourself, or I'll kill you! But you can only choose from the options that I've given you. Hurry up! Why aren't you thinking for yourself? You're despicable. You're less than an animal!" Blam!

As the scene is written, Dagny made the guard her victim and then held him in contempt because he behaved like a victim.

J

A well-written scene in which a hero confronts guards:

Nigel Powers: Easy peasy, lemon-squeasy. What, is this your first day on the job or something? Look, this is how it goes; You try to attack me, one at a time, and I knock you both out with a single punch. Ready? Go!

[Dr. Evil's henchmen do exactly as he predicted]

Nigel Powers: Judo chop. Judo chop.

Dr. Evil: Oh, he's good.

Henchman Sailor: [approaches warily]

Nigel Powers: Do you know who I am?

Henchman Sailor: [nods]

Nigel Powers: Have you got any idea how many anonymous henchmen I've killed over the years?

Henchman Sailor: [nods again]

Nigel Powers: I mean, look at you. You don't even have a name tag. You've got no chance. Why don't you just fall down?

[henchman falls down]

Edited by Jonathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has gotten a little silly. I think we have some creative and deliberate misunderstanding of Rand going on here.

Dagny said that the guard was in her way. She told him that (as if he didn't already know!), and told him the consequences of him either deciding "no" or not deciding.

She shot him because he didn't let her pass. Plain and simple, as she indicated. Rand weaves in another interesting theme --- the culpability of those who acquiesce in actions, because they have orders from their "superiors."

If the text had described the guard as having worn blue jeans, would some of the commentators here have suggested that Dagny shot him because he wore blue jeans?

Alfonso

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alfonso,

The subtext of the misreading is an attempt to prove that Rand was a hypocrite on one account so she can be dismissed on all accounts. (Not by all, but by most.)

A variation is an attempt to discredit those who like Objectivism by claiming/insinuating that they are making logical pretzels to defend Rand when she was a hypocrite.

Same old same old.

(Of course, there is the little issue of whether Rand actually was a hypocrite with this example. But, hey. Why let that stop anyone? :) )

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alfonso,

The subtext of the misreading is an attempt to prove that Rand was a hypocrite on one account so she can be dismissed on all accounts. (Not by all, but by most.)

A variation is an attempt to discredit those who like Objectivism by claiming/insinuating that they are making logical pretzels to defend Rand when she was a hypocrite.

Same old same old.

(Of course, there is the little issue of whether Rand actually was a hypocrite with this example. But, hey. Why let that stop anyone? :) )

Michael

Shades of "blunderbuss." Equal validity, same likely motivation.

Alfonso

Edited for spelling error...

Edited by Alfonso
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alfonso,

The subtext of the misreading is an attempt to prove that Rand was a hypocrite on one account so she can be dismissed on all accounts. (Not by all, but by most.)

Not by me. I don't feel that I'm misreading the scene, but that Rand may have overlooked the difference between what she intended to say and what the details of what she wrote communicate, or how they can be reasonably interpreted.

And I'm by no means interested in dismissing Rand. I think there are areas in which she was most definitely a hypocrite or had very confused or contradictory ideas, but I don't think that pointing them out or discussing them is an attempt to discredit all of her ideas. Hell, the more I study her views on aesthetics, for example, the less I think she knew about any art form other than her own novels, but that doesn't stop me from valuing her aesthetic insights, including ones that I think are very problematic.

I think that being very critical of her ideas and exploring our differences of opinion when it comes to how we view her art is exactly what joyous intellection (to borrow a phrase from Alexandra York) is all about.

Also, when discussing ideas with fellow thinkers, sometimes going over the same ground a few times and saying things in slightly different ways seems to be required in order to make sure that we understand each other. It's not always an attempt to bludgeon others, but to reach out to them.

A variation is an attempt to discredit those who like Objectivism by claiming/insinuating that they are making logical pretzels to defend Rand when she was a hypocrite.

Same old same old.

I think the problem is that there are many Objectivists who discredit themselves by twisting themselves into pretzels in order to defend Rand even when she was wrong or self-contradictory. Fortunately, I think you're less likely to find that type of Objectivist here on OL than elsewhere.

(Of course, there is the little issue of whether Rand actually was a hypocrite with this example. But, hey. Why let that stop anyone? :) )

I don't think that Rand was a hypocrite because of the scene in which Dagny kills the guard. I just think that it didn't occur to her that she wrote a scene in which Dagny didn't have sufficient information about the guard's psychology, ethics or anything else before judging him as being worthy of less respect than an animal. My point is an aesthetic criticism of the logic of the scene, not a moral judgment of Rand.

J

Edited by Jonathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now