Ayn Rand's concept of a Hero

[Xray]

Does anyone have any comment on the opening post on this thread? It has gone terribly off topic.

Michael

I don't think it has, but since Rand's whole oeuvre is based on the claim of objective value, the issue will be naturally be brought up often in the various discussions.

If my # 96 post left something unclear, just let me know.

As for the Randian heores, I'm awaiting Michelle's and others' replies to my # 68 and # 75 posts.

Maybe you would like to discuss the heroes in detail too here?

More in my next post.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Xray

[Guyau]

Stephen,

A good question might be to ask what is the opposite of heroism.

Michael

I think the contrast classes of the heroic, in contemporary usage of the term, are available from the definitions given in #43.

Counting as not heroic would be (i) endeavors without notable feats of courage or nobility of purpose or (ii) living without making any outstanding achievements or contributions to any events, fields, or causes. Epicureanism would set the non-heroic as an ideal. Although Epicureanism is inadequate as a morality, nonetheless it is the case that moral goodness and meaningful life include much more than heroism. Moreover, existential heroism of one’s own (in contrast to the hero in one’s soul or seen in the soul of one’s loved one and in contrast to the sight of heroes in the world or in fiction) is not necessary to goodness or life or happiness. Seek not directly to be heroic; seek not directly nobility of purpose. Seek living and making a life. That is the basis of anything making heroism valuable.

[Xray]

Continuing the discussion with Michelle from #68 and #75:

Michelle and others,

The stilted, cardboard cutout character of the Randian heroes is hard to miss even for Rand followers.

But it is important to keep in mind that they were conceived as role models for Randians, with Rand clearly stating that such people also existed in reality.

This claim by Rand makes it difficult for her followers to downplay any uneasiness about these wooden characters, using an escape avenue by claiming they are "only" fictional characters who do not accurately present Rand's philosophy in full. Especially since they at the same time quote from Galt's speech as an accurate presentation of Rand's philosophy.

A thing which I find remarkable about the heroes is their virtual 'celibacy'.

While Francisco, Rearden and Galt obviously all want Dagny, they, aside from that, seem to live strangely devoid of a sexual life.

Franciso says he has had no sexual contact with other women in all those years, Rearden still has wife but has long since stopped sleeping with her, and as for Galt, there is no woman either in his life.

Danneskjöld is married, but is mostly away sinking ships, leaving his wife back in the valley.

Many other men in the novel are "womanless" too, and frankly, when reading about the meetings with Akston and and his three favorite students Ragnar, Franciso and John Galt, the description was so cozy in a way that I would not exclude some homoerotic undercurrent. I'm not saying that Rand concsciously intended this but still, one could argue there is something there.

Ken Danagger speaks of Rearden as "the only man he ever loved" .

AS, p. 448:

The only man man I ever loved." It came from Ken Danagger who had never expresed anything more than "Look here, Rearden." He [Rearden]thought: Why had we let it go?"

I know that the word "love" is used in English more generously than in German (where its use is more restricted, at least in the generation I belong to), so I'm interested in hearing native speakers' opinions on that.

Then there's this passage:

AS, p. 792: She [Dagny] noticed that Franciso was displaying his domain to Galt as much as to her, as much or more.

"You haven't seen it since last year. John ... John, wait till you see it in a year from now. I'll be throught, outside, in just few months - and then his will be my full-time job".

"Hell, no, John", he said, laughing in answer to a question - but she caught suddenly the particular quality of his glance whenever it rested on Galt: it was the quality she had seen in his eyes when he had stood in her room, clutching the edge of a table outliving an unlivable moment; he had looked as if he were seeing someone before him; it was Galt's image that had carried him through. (end quote)

So it looks like succumbing to Galt's wishes has always been the "higher value" for Francisco than his relationship to Dagny.

Maybe that's why Francsico later "shrugged regretfully, but gaily" (p. 796) when Galt does not allow Dagny to spend the last week at Francisco's house?

AS, p. 792:

Some part of her felt dim tension as she watched the way Galt looked at Franciso: it was an open, simple, unreserved glance of surrender to an unreserved feeling. She felt the anxious wonder she had never fully named or dismissed: wonder whether this feeling would bring him down to the ugliness of renunciation. (end quote)

What "unreserved feeling" is Galt surrendering to here?

Edited October 17, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Stephen,

I basically agree with what you just posted. The reason I framed it that way is that I use this method of looking to the opposite when something gets blurred. And the opposite is not always as clear as it may seem.

I just recently went through The Culture Code of Clotaire Rapaille. He makes an extremely important point. He breaks human structures (in Objectivism these would be value structures, but they also include subconscious elements he calls "imprints") down into three areas, biological, individual and cultural. On the cultural level, he gives the freedom and it's opposite for Americans as different than for the French. For Americans, the opposite of freedom is prohibition. (This is on a cultural level, not necessarily a conceptual one in the strict meaning of the concept.) For the French, the opposite of freedom is not prohibition. It is privilege and it is something to aspire to. (He gives some interesting evidence, too.)

This kind of mixed meaning gives rise to all kinds of misunderstandings. When I wondered out loud the opposite of heroism, I was specifically thinking of Jennifer Burns's statement to Jon Stewart in her recent interview that Rand's self-help message is to be the hero of your own life. I started wondering what the opposite of that would be, and if anyone would want not to be the hero of his or her own life, at least on the surface lip-service level.

Another monkeywrench-in-the-works figure who stands out to me is Eddie Willers. He has all the Objectivist virtues, but Rand does not present him as a hero, nor do I recall ever reading where she said he was a hero.

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

I have been, at different times in my life, rethinking what Willers was supposed to represent.

As I have been out of the loop, can anyone direct me to a particular critique of the Eddie Willers character that they thought was valuable.

I would be grateful.

Adam

Post script: The Culture Code sounds right up my alley.

By the way, another unintended positive consequence of OL has been the breadth of books, articles, works of art, movies, e.g. that I would not

necessarily be exposed to.

Nice place.

[jeffrey smith]

A thing which I find remarkable about the heroes is their virtual 'celibacy'.

While Francisco, Rearden and Galt obviously all want Dagny, they, aside from that, seem to live strangely devoid of a sexual life.

Ken Danagger speaks of Rearden as "the only man he ever loved" .

AS, p. 448:

The only man man I ever loved." It came from Ken Danagger who had never expresed anything more than "Look here, Rearden." He [Rearden]thought: Why had we let it go?"

I know that the word "love" is used in English more generously than in German (where its use is more restricted, at least in the generation I belong to), so I'm interested in hearing native speakers' opinions on that.

I think Xray's question can be answered pretty quickly in light of two quotes from Holy Scripture.

First, from the Gospel.

Love, friendship, respect, admiration are the emotional response of one man to the virtues of another.

Second, from the Epistles.

A man of self-esteem, a man in love with himself and with life, feels an intense need to find human beings whom he can admire--to find a spiritual equal whom he can love.

[The quotes, in fact, are from The Virtue of Selfishness, pages 35 and 77 of the Signet paperback edition]

Rand's wording implies that one man can love another, although Branden's discussion of sex that follows the quote I have given from his article seems to think of sex only in terms of male/female. So it's quite feasible to think of Francisco and other loving Galt, and presumably to think of Galt as loving them in return: although this sort of love does not necessarily imply any erotic element, and in fact is a depiction of Plato's idea of love (as expounded by Socrates in the Symposium), minus the Platonic idea that such a love can the instrument that draws us up to the contemplation and knowledge of the Divine.

As for the celibacy--presumably, Hank, Francisco and others have a hard time meeting spiritual equals, and therefore don't fall in love that often, while at the same time rejecting the pretence of love that is involved in mere fornication (meaning sex for the simple physical pleasure of the act)

[Selene]

Ahh yes, the dulcet sounds of ICH LEBE DICH http://text-to-speec...be%20Sie%20auch

"...'love' is used in English more generously than in German (where its use is more restricted,..."

Yes indeed xray, ah, remember the good ole days when love was restricted to non-Jews, non-Gypsys, and just them good ole Arians.

Back in the days when being a gay storm trooper dressed in leather was considered vanilla sex.

All those envious looks on the young Frauleins as those big German 88's exploded and hurled their "bullets" into the air!

Those big German Panzer Tiger Tanks with that Solingwald steel armor and huge cannon in front.

Here is just a musical review of the fun days of the Fatherland! Sing along!

Adam

Edited October 18, 2009 by Selene

[Brant Gaede]

Uh, Adam! Knock, knock. I know blasting Xray this way is wrong even though she cannot defend herself from your subjective values because that would mean her subjective values would be better than yours and how could that be?

--Brant

[Selene]

Well my father's subjective values can kick her father's subjective values ass!

So there and xray's mother wears subjective combat boots!

Stamping my feet and holding my breath until Phil turns blue.

Adam

pouting in childish glee

[Guyau]

Adam (#105) and Michael (#104), here is discussion of the character Eddie Willers.

The following scenes with Eddie are pertinent to the topic of this thread (topic of ## 1, 5, 8, 9, 10, 20, 42, 43, 98, 102 in this thread):

The teenage Francisco “had a caste system of his own: to him, the Taggart children were not Jim and Dagny, but Dagny and Eddie” (90).

Eddie “thought of a summer day when he was ten years old. That day, in a clearing of the woods, the one precious companion of his childhood told him what they would do when they grew up. The words were harsh and glowing, like the sunlight. He listened in admiration and in wonder. When he was asked what he would want to do, he answered at once, ‘Whatever is right’, and added, ‘You ought to do something great . . . I mean, the two of us together’. ‘What?’ she asked. He said, ‘I don’t know. That’s what we ought to find out. Not just what you said. Not just business and earning a living. Things like winning battles, or saving people out of fires, or climbing mountains’. ‘What for?’ she asked. He said, ‘The minister said last Sunday that we must always reach for the best within us. What do you suppose is the best with us?’ ‘I don’t know’. ‘We’ll have to find out’. She did not answer; she was looking away, up the railroad track.” (6)

The farewell scene between Eddie and Dagny is on page 1116 of the first-edition hardback.

“Dagny!—he heard himself crying soundlessly—Dagny, in the name of the best within us! . . . He was jerking at futile levers and at a throttle that had nothing to move. . . . Dagny!—he was crying to a twelve-year-old girl in a sunlit clearing of the woods—in the name of the best within us, I must now start this train! . . . Dagny, that is what it was . . . and you knew it, then, but I didn’t . . . you knew it when you turned to look at the rails. . . . I said, ‘not business or earning a living’ . . . but, Dagny, business and earning a living and that in man which makes it possible—that is the best within us . . .” (1166)

Edited October 18, 2009 by Stephen Boydstun

[Xray]

Uh, Adam! Knock, knock. I know blasting Xray this way is wrong even though she cannot defend herself from your subjective values because that would mean her subjective values would be better than yours and how could that be?

--Brant

Selene is blowing smoke, as usual. He believes he can slink his way through the discussions by doing this, an on the rare occasions when he does try to refute arguments, he makes elementary errors.

Read his recent attempt on this thread at "proving" Dragonfly committed a logical errror. But I'm afraid that boot was on Selene's foot.

Imo Selene is also in this for entertaiment purposes, and therefore not as serious about the whole discussion as other posters.

Edited October 18, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Another monkeywrench-in-the-works figure who stands out to me is Eddie Willers. He has all the Objectivist virtues, but Rand does not present him as a hero, nor do I recall ever reading where she said he was a hero.

The answer is easy: Rand did not consider Eddie as a "prime mover". He was a nice guy, competent in his job, and a loyal friend, but did not have enough "superman" qualities to fit Rands image of hero in her elitist ideology: The cold, ruthless, almost battery-operated John Galt-type, whose "great ideas" move the world.

Therefore Eddie was denied entry into Rand's paradise.

What makes Eddie a monkeywrench-in the-works figure: Ayn Rand failed to take into account that, in the course of the novel, the reader will relate to Eddie in a positive way because he is one of the few figures showing human behavior, being portrayed as sensitive, loyal and caring.

Ayn Rand probably had no idea of how disturbing Eddie's fate would be perceived my many readers. Imo the author's own lack of empathy is reflected in the ending she thought out for Eddie, as well as in many other parts of the novel.

Poor Eddie, he always got the short end of the stick. The guy who never got the girl, so to speak. The loyal friend, quietly suffering from unrequited love to the woman of whom he knew that she would never return his feelings in the same way.

Re Rand's 'prime mover' ideology: suppose the opposite had happened and all the workers had left, not one pound of copper would have been been extracted from the mines, no furances would have burned, not one yard of Taggart rail would have been laid, and the 'prime movers' would have sat there helplessly. There's always two sides to a coin.

Edited October 18, 2009 by Xray

[Alfonso Jones]

Another monkeywrench-in-the-works figure who stands out to me is Eddie Willers. He has all the Objectivist virtues, but Rand does not present him as a hero, nor do I recall ever reading where she said he was a hero.

The answer is easy: Rand did not consider Eddie as a "prime mover". He was a nice guy, competent in his job, and a loyal friend, but did not have enough "superman" qualities to fit Rands image of hero in her elitist ideology: The cold, ruthless, almost battery-operated John Galt-type, whose "great ideas" move the world.

Therefore Eddie was denied entry into Rand's paradise.

What makes Eddie a monkeywrench-in the-works figure: Ayn Rand failed to take into account that, in the course of the novel, the reader will relate to Eddie in a positive way because he is one of the few figures showing human behavior. He is portryedayed as sensitive, caring etc.

Ayn Rand probably had no idea of how disturbing Eddie's fate would be perceived my many readers. Imo the author's own lack of empathy is reflected in the ending she thought out for Eddie, as well as in many other parts of the novel.

Poor Eddie, he always got the short end of the stick. The guy who never got the girl, so to speak. The loyal friend, quietly suffering from unrequited love to the woman of whom he knew that she would never return his feelings in the same way.

Re Rand's 'prime mover' ideology: suppose the opposite had happened and all the workers had left, not one pound of copper would have been been extracted from the mines, no furances would have burned, not one yard of Taggart rail would have been laid, and the 'prime movers' would have sat there helplessly. There's always two sides to a coin.

It has always seemed obvious to me that Rand intended Eddie Willers' fate as a dramatic illustration of what happens to good, ethical people in a world dominated by the altruism. That, in fact, altruist philosophy does NOT help the Eddies of the world - because it can't generate the prosperity and growth essential for raising the overall economic level. Capitalism (and freedom in general) are the BEST PROTECTION for the average people.

Bill P

[Xray]

Another monkeywrench-in-the-works figure who stands out to me is Eddie Willers. He has all the Objectivist virtues, but Rand does not present him as a hero, nor do I recall ever reading where she said he was a hero.

The answer is easy: Rand did not consider Eddie as a "prime mover". He was a nice guy, competent in his job, and a loyal friend, but did not have enough "superman" qualities to fit Rands image of hero in her elitist ideology: The cold, ruthless, almost battery-operated John Galt-type, whose "great ideas" move the world.

Therefore Eddie was denied entry into Rand's paradise.

What makes Eddie a monkeywrench-in the-works figure: Ayn Rand failed to take into account that, in the course of the novel, the reader will relate to Eddie in a positive way because he is one of the few figures showing human behavior. He is portryedayed as sensitive, caring etc.

Ayn Rand probably had no idea of how disturbing Eddie's fate would be perceived my many readers. Imo the author's own lack of empathy is reflected in the ending she thought out for Eddie, as well as in many other parts of the novel.

Poor Eddie, he always got the short end of the stick. The guy who never got the girl, so to speak. The loyal friend, quietly suffering from unrequited love to the woman of whom he knew that she would never return his feelings in the same way.

Re Rand's 'prime mover' ideology: suppose the opposite had happened and all the workers had left, not one pound of copper would have been been extracted from the mines, no furances would have burned, not one yard of Taggart rail would have been laid, and the 'prime movers' would have sat there helplessly. There's always two sides to a coin.

It has always seemed obvious to me that Rand intended Eddie Willers' fate as a dramatic illustration of what happens to good, ethical people in a world dominated by the altruism. That, in fact, altruist philosophy does NOT help the Eddies of the world - because it can't generate the prosperity and growth essential for raising the overall economic level. Capitalism (and freedom in general) are the BEST PROTECTION for the average people.

Bill P

But there exist no "altruists" in that novel. What you think drove for example, Jim Taggart? Self-interest or "altruism"?

[Alfonso Jones]

But there exist no "altruists" in that novel. What you think drove for example, Jim Taggart? Self-interest or "altruism"?

Xray -

I strongly suggest that

1) you work to acquire a passing familiarity with the novel you are asking questions about.

2) you make a best effort to avoid equivocal use of terms. Don't take a term Rand used many, many times - giving many examples and extended discussion - and attempt to apply some other definition for that term, and then suggest there's a contradiction because Rand's use of the term doesn't coincide with yours.

Bill P

[Brant Gaede]

Uh, Adam! Knock, knock. I know blasting Xray this way is wrong even though she cannot defend herself from your subjective values because that would mean her subjective values would be better than yours and how could that be?

--Brant

Selene is blowing smoke, as usual. He believes he can slink his way through the discussions by doing this, an on the rare occasions when he does try to refute arguments, he makes elementary errors.

Read his recent attempt on this thread at "proving" Dragonfly committed a logical errror. But I'm afraid that boot was on Selene's foot.

Imo Selene is also in this for entertaiment purposes, and therefore not as serious about the whole discussion as other posters.

Imo Selene has a hearty dislike of you. Thus he's always looking for the appropriate barbeque sauce to cook your ass with.

--Brant

[Xray]

[quote name='jeffrey smith' date='17 October 2009 - 08:02 PM' timestamp='1255827774'

I think Xray's question can be answered pretty quickly in light of two quotes from Holy Scripture.

First, from the Gospel.

Love, friendship, respect, admiration are the emotional response of one man to the virtues of another.

Second, from the Epistles.

A man of self-esteem, a man in love with himself and with life, feels an intense need to find human beings whom he can admire--to find a spiritual equal whom he can love.

[The quotes, in fact, are from The Virtue of Selfishness, pages 35 and 77 of the Signet paperback edition]

Kudos, that was pretty smart of you to present it like that.

And TVOS is of course taken as gospel by fervent Randians, who accept as truth what stands there because Ayn Rand said so.

I have often asked Mrs. K, the nice lady who comes to my door every fortnight with the newest edition of the Jehova's witnesses booklets (as I'm a friendly person, I don't bang the door in her face) "Why are you convinced that what you so firmly believe in is true? You can have no proof, can you?"

After which Mrs. usually beams and says: "We have the Bible whose writers were inspired by Jehova. Therefore we know it is true what is in there."

Which is reasoning in circles of course, where a premise based on belief is used as alleged proof of truth.

- Jehova's witness: "Our faith is based on truth."

- How can we know that what we believe is true?"

- We have the Bible, which was inspired by God."

Case closed.

So the stay caught within their own belief system, not allowing an external assessment of their claims.

You can get the same type of circular reasoning with orthodox Objectivists.

- Objectivist: "Objectivism is based on truth.

- How can we know that?

- In ITOE, Ayn Rand said ..." (Or: "In Galt's speech in ATLAS SHRUGGED, he says ...")

Is it a wonder then that Atlas Shrugged seems to have almost Bible-like status among some fervent Objectivists?

Quote from an 1972 article by M. Rothbard: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html

"The rereading of Atlas was also important to the cult because the wooden, posturing, and one-dimensional heroes and heroines were explicitly supposed to serve as role models for every Randian. Just as every Christian is supposed to aim at the imitation of Christ in his own daily life, so every Randian was supposed to aim at the imitation of John Galt (Rand’s hero of heroes in Atlas.) He was always supposed to ask himself in every situation "What would John Galt have done?" When we remind ourselves that Jesus, after all, was an actual historical figure whereas Galt was not, the bizarrerie of this injunction can be readily grasped. (Although from the awed way Randians spoke of John Galt, one often got the impression that, for them, the line between fiction and reality was very thin indeed.)

Her Bible

The Biblical nature of Atlas for many Randians is illustrated by the wedding of a Randian couple that took place in New York. At the ceremony, the couple pledged their joint devotion and fealty to Ayn Rand, and then supplemented it by opening Atlas – perhaps at random – to read aloud a passage from the sacred text." (end quote)

Jeffrey Smith:

Rand's wording implies that one man can love another, although Branden's discussion of sex that follows the quote I have given from his article seems to think of sex only in terms of male/female. So it's quite feasible to think of Francisco and other loving Galt, and presumably to think of Galt as loving them in return: although this sort of love does not necessarily imply any erotic element, and in fact is a depiction of Plato's idea of love (as expounded by Socrates in the Symposium), minus the Platonic idea that such a love can the instrument that draws us up to the contemplation and knowledge of the Divine.

Interesting point of view, Jeffrey.

As for what N. Branden wrote in TVOS about sex and a partner necessary who represents one's highest values to make it an act worthy of Objectivist approval - I'm afraid mankind would long since have become exctinct if people had only mated under such restricting circumstances.

But what surprised me was how negatively N. Branden came to see AS:

"Former Ayn Rand associate Nathaniel Branden argues that Atlas Shrugged "encourages emotional repression and self-disowning" and that her works contain contradictory messages. Branden claimed that the characters rarely talk "on a simple, human level without launching into philosophical sermons." He criticizes the potential psychological impact of the novel, stating that John Galt's recommendation to respond to wrongdoing with "contempt and moral condemnation" clashes with the view of psychologists who say this only causes the wrongdoing to repeat itself."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged

Edited October 18, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Imo Selene has a hearty dislike of you.

That's quite obvious.

Just another example of valuing being a subjective issue.

Edited October 18, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

But there exist no "altruists" in that novel. What you think drove for example, Jim Taggart? Self-interest or "altruism"?

Xray -

I strongly suggest that

1) you work to acquire a passing familiarity with the novel you are asking questions about.

2) you make a best effort to avoid equivocal use of terms. Don't take a term Rand used many, many times - giving many examples and extended discussion - and attempt to apply some other definition for that term, and then suggest there's a contradiction because Rand's use of the term doesn't coincide with yours.

Bill P

Bill P -

I strongly suggest that

1) you read my detailed posts here discussing AS, together with quotes from the novel, to get a picture of how familiar I am with it. See for example posts # 68, # 75, # 103. More is yet to come, for we have just started.

2) you join in right here to give your opinion on an aspect of the novel:

It's about how serenely D'Anconia seems to accept Dagny's preference for Galt.

So what is the higher value D'Anconia gets for leaving Dagny to Galt without even trying to fight for the woman he has loved so much that he has not engaged in any sexual relations with other women during all those years?

Highly odd reaction for a man like D'Anconia, who is described as passionate and deeply in love with Dagny, don't you think so?

And as for Dagny - lo and behold - what happened to how she suddenly perceives D'Anconia after having met Galt?

Before having yet begun an intimate relationship with Galt, Dagny knows already that D'Anconia would now be in her eyes, compared to Galt, only (p. 797) "a second choice", "a resented substitute", "a half-charity patient", "half-crutch". Quite a fall from the pedestal for the noble copper heir and hunk Francisco I must say.

It is amazing how they all seem to bow before Galt. He is described as "the sternest of teachers (p. 796);

Dagny: "I forced my way here," she said quietly, and I was to bear responsibility for thecosequences. I'm bearing it." (803)

That she forced her way into the valley is of course nonsense, since she had no idea that it existed. Therefore she could not have broken any rules of the valley as Galt claims she did. But she unquestioningly accepts Galt's opinion.

Bill, if you would like to show me where there is any room for individualism left in that Brave New World in which imo Galt has more than a few traits in common with a Grand Inquisitor?

It was Galt who ruthlessly destroyed Dagny's railroad. "It had to be done", so he would justify his acts, wouldn't he? Right up there with other dictators. "It has to be done in the name of justice", I can image many of them saying before "intervening" with those who don't happen to share their values. Seems like those "great goals" always require "sacrifices" ...

Edited October 18, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

2) you make a best effort to avoid equivocal use of terms. Don't take a term Rand used many, many times - giving many examples and extended discussion - and attempt to apply some other definition for that term, and then suggest there's a contradiction because Rand's use of the term doesn't coincide with yours.

The problem is that quite often Rand's "definitions" don't coincide with reality.

[Xray]

Xray:

[quote name='jeffrey smith' date='17 October 2009 - 08:02 PM' timestamp='1255827774'

I think Xray's question can be answered pretty quickly in light of two quotes from Holy Scripture.

First, from the Gospel.

Love, friendship, respect, admiration are the emotional response of one man to the virtues of another.

Second, from the Epistles.

A man of self-esteem, a man in love with himself and with life, feels an intense need to find human beings whom he can admire--to find a spiritual equal whom he can love.

[The quotes, in fact, are from The Virtue of Selfishness, pages 35 and 77 of the Signet paperback edition]

Kudos, that was pretty smart of you to present it like that.

So sorry Jeffrey - I just saw the quote from your post didn't show up in # 117, so here it is:

JS: I think Xray's question can be answered pretty quickly in light of two quotes from Holy Scripture.

First, from the Gospel.

Love, friendship, respect, admiration are the emotional response of one man to the virtues of another.

Second, from the Epistles.

A man of self-esteem, a man in love with himself and with life, feels an intense need to find human beings whom he can admire--to find a spiritual equal whom he can love.

[The quotes, in fact, are from The Virtue of Selfishness, pages 35 and 77 of the Signet paperback edition]

Strange that it did show up in the typed version of the post before it says 'add reply' or 'save changes', and even now as I checked. Must be some glitch.

Edited October 18, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

But there exist no "altruists" in that novel. What you think drove for example, Jim Taggart? Self-interest or "altruism"?

Xray -

I strongly suggest that

1) you work to acquire a passing familiarity with the novel you are asking questions about.

2) you make a best effort to avoid equivocal use of terms. Don't take a term Rand used many, many times - giving many examples and extended discussion - and attempt to apply some other definition for that term, and then suggest there's a contradiction because Rand's use of the term doesn't coincide with yours.

Bill P

Bill,

See what you get?

It never gets any better. That's the only flavor in this person's prolific shop. I speak from the experience of oodles of posts with her.

It's very funny, also, because Xray makes a presumptuous speculation comparing Objectivists to Jehovah's Witnesses. The funny part is that a Jehovah's Witness personality is the exact mental image I have of her: dogma + repetition + nonstop witnessing and outreach + good manners.

She is basically here on OL witnessing against Satan Ayn Rand. I truly believe she is trying to save souls.

I read a comment on a Communist forum once (doing a Google search for something else) that has stayed with me. I don't remember the forum, but I do remember that the person was German. He said that arguing with a Jehovah's Witness was futile because you can win the argument and still not convince the person. He or she will simply come back, ask questions for outreach and repeat the JV dogma.

Do you see the same pattern here with this person? I do.

I'll keep tolerating her repetitious preaching and Rand/Objectivism/Objectivist-bashing until it gets so wearisome to the other posters that I will have to intervene. I am already getting offline complaints about her, and not from Adam, either. Until then, people are free to agree with her or not and engage her or not. I simply don't. And I don't read her posts, either, except for a sporadic once-in-a-while to monitor the situation (like I did just now).

Michael

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Understanding the Literary Need for a Tragic Figure

I'm amazed how often the idea that it is a flaw in Atlas Shrugged or in Rand's empathy to not save Eddie Willers is raised time and time again. Even by Rand fiction admirers and philosophical allies (and, of course, by those hostile to both).

> Ayn Rand probably had no idea of how disturbing Eddie's fate would be perceived by many readers. Imo the author's own lack of empathy is reflected in the ending she thought out for Eddie, as well as in many other parts of the novel. [Xray]

Absolutely the opposite: It is because she knew how disturbing it would be ...“Dagny!—he heard himself crying soundlessly...he was crying to a twelve-year-old girl in a sunlit clearing of the woods—in the name of the best within us, I must now start this train! " ... that she crafted it to be as disturbing as possible.

The reason is that a novel one of whose themes is the role of the mind in man's existence and the vicious results of collectivism has to have a tragic figure who is crushed by the system. Not just the bad guys, but the admired people, the good guys, the people you care about and love are 'road kill' because of a vicious system. That's what makes you care.

It's because of her enormous empathy for the -victims- that she includes people crushed by the system, she includes tragic victims, she makes their fate and the enormous injustice they suffer palpable to us. In the person of Eddie. There is a bit of this also in the tragic death of the Wet Nurse. And more so in the case of Cheryl, James Taggart's wife. It's because these are good people that we feel this deeply, compared to what happens to non-sympathetic characters. In fact, for many of us, these are among the more powerful sections of the novel.

To not include this in the novel would be like describing the horrors of war and not showing the victims and the atrocities, to describe 9-11 and sanitize or not show the body parts raining from the windows of the World Center. To not show the inside of the concentration camps. And to be deaf to those atrocities or engage in a conspiracy of silence.

It would be a literary atrocity.

Or at least a major failure of clarity and truth.

Edited October 18, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

My own point about Eddie Willers is that he has all the Objectivist virtues and is still not presented as a hero. I was trying to comment on the opening post.

I believe this point is important in understanding what Rand meant by "hero."

I also disagree with those who hold that his participation and fate are a flaw in AS.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> I also disagree with those who hold that his participation and fate are a flaw in AS. [MSK]

As you can see I agree - and I think Bill P also gave an answer to the "Eddie Question". But I wanted to give a bit more detail and explanation and tie it to a wider context.

Edited October 18, 2009 by Philip Coates