Why did Dagny and Hank assume the motor had been invented by a single man?

[Brant Gaede]

Subject: Criticisms of Objectivism

Independent of Brant or this thread, the issue

---> //A// of practicality: whether or not Oism is workable and doable --- the allegations that people can't always control themselves, live by reason, will feel guilty, it leads (by nature rather than failure to practice or integrate fully) to unhappy consequences, broken relationships, lack of success in life --- is a different topic from

---> //B// it's -wrong-: instead people should be altruistic, nietzschean, or collectivist, emotionalist, intuitionist.

This is an important philosophical and psychological discussion and should have it's own thread if there are people who want to (articulately and clearly) defend //A//.

If they want to make some form of the argument from imperfection or human limitations (read the conservatives or hobessians), they could make it there. I might have lots to say on the subject. In an appropriate discussion.

(Both A and B are false, of course.)

A: What is Oism?

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

Worship of the vagina.

[Brant Gaede]

Worship of the vagina.

That covers the heterosexual males and lesbians, I suppose--and the gynecologists--but I thought the philosophy was more universal.

--Brant

a serious man, but I can do humor

[Philip Coates]

Subject: The Last Part of Atlas Shrugged

(One reader posted his view that the book started strong but is of poor quality either starting in "the valley" or in the remaining chapters. This has prompted me to reread starting at that point. I'm posting some commentary - in no particular order - but will stop if no one replies.)

Empathy and concern for the smaller characters: One of the ludicrous things about those who claims Rand only deals with major heroes and totally black characters, is that they don't seem to have read Part III (A is A).

Maybe they rushed ahead to see how the action turns out? Because Part III is where the whole story of Cherryl plays out and also the Wet Nurse. In each case, one of the major characters (Dagny and Rearden) takes a fragile secondary character under their wing. Even though both Cherryl and the Wet Nurse had either tried to damage or subvert or had been contemptuous and insulting toward the major character who helps them.

The kindness and thoughtfulness and generosity of Rearden in the one case and Dagny in the other are quite pronounced. They show great empathy and slow down and take their time to help, to be supportive. [by the way, Rand could also be that way herself in real life.]

[Xray]

> But isn't Lillian's "villainous" behavior also a reaction to how she was being treated by her husband who rejected her right from the start? [Xray]

No, remember he thought she was someone who admired and respected him, looking up at him with glowing eyes as he showed her his mills. Only when safely married, and he comes home to give her the first item made from his new invention, a new metal. She puts him down sarcastically in front of everyone and says it's fully as valuable as a piece of slag. And she's the one who rejects him sexually [sort of bored contempt and comments about how men have these slimy needs and women have to put up with them...then she smoothes her hair and picks up her book.]

Also, remember her comments about hobbling or crippling the strongest horse in the world, so he wouldn't throw you?

And he keeps making excuses, accepting guilt, saying well, maybe it's her way of showing love, etc.

And there's more...if you check the book. Reread those very early chapters. Do you have a copy with you in Germany?

(Xray, same question I asked Dragonfly - what language did you read it in - and when did you last reread parts of it?)

I read it in English, but only once so far, and a very short time ago.

As for rereading parts, I'm leafing through it often to quote as precisely from it as possible.

I have the copy right here, have found the passage with the bracelet (on page 37 in my harcover ed. (Part I, Non-Contradiction, chapter 2 The Chain), and am looking for those other passages.

Imo at the time of the episode with the bracelet, Lillian has already built up a lot of frustration because Rearden seems to be married to his job more than to her.

On page 159, we learn more about how Hank Rearden perceived his relationship to his wife right from the start.

"It was the difficulty of the conquest that made him want Lillian. She seemed to be a woman who expected and deserved a pedestal, this wanted to make him want to drag her down to his bed. To drag her down, were the words in his mind; they gave him a dark pleasure, like the sense of victory worth winning.

He could not understand why - he thought it was an obscene conflict, the sign of some secret depravity within him - why he felt at the same time a profound pride is at the thought of granting to a woman the title of his wife. The feeling was solemn and shining, it was almost as if he wished to honor a woman by the act of possessig her."

A few paragraphs further down, it says:

"His desire for her had died in the first week of their marriage."

Is it a wonder then that Lillian remained sexually unresponsive to such a man?

Edited October 26, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

> Have you considered not hitting the bait?

Adam, I don't speculate on my opponent or interlocutor's motives but simply view them as raising a legitimate question or a missreading. Then I decide if I have time to answer, if the question interests me.

So I'm actually enjoying the opportunity to discuss with people who have very negative perspectives about the book, as long as they are civil and can express their views intelligently and can point to examples.

Right now, I'm enjoying the chance to put into words things I've not fully articulated or made precise about Atlas Shrugged but have merely 'felt'. I can't post on it endlessly of course...and at some point will have to stop when Xray, Jeffrey, and DF simply wear me out.. ..even though many questions will still remain on the table.

Thank you Phil. It makes much more sense to me. I also enjoy this forum on a number of levels. I refer to it as mental gymnastics. At some level it is an internet think tank.

Adam

[Selene]

Worship of the vagina.

That covers the heterosexual males and lesbians, I suppose--and the gynecologists--but I thought the philosophy was more universal.

--Brant

a serious man, but I can do humor

See I read it as OYISM, as in Oy vey (Yiddish: אױ װײ), I thought he was referring to the Jewish wing of "big O" objectivism! What a schmuck I am.

Adam

always watching for hidden bigotry

[Selene]

> But isn't Lillian's "villainous" behavior also a reaction to how she was being treated by her husband who rejected her right from the start? [Xray]

No, remember he thought she was someone who admired and respected him, looking up at him with glowing eyes as he showed her his mills. Only when safely married, and he comes home to give her the first item made from his new invention, a new metal. She puts him down sarcastically in front of everyone and says it's fully as valuable as a piece of slag. And she's the one who rejects him sexually [sort of bored contempt and comments about how men have these slimy needs and women have to put up with them...then she smoothes her hair and picks up her book.]

Also, remember her comments about hobbling or crippling the strongest horse in the world, so he wouldn't throw you?

And he keeps making excuses, accepting guilt, saying well, maybe it's her way of showing love, etc.

And there's more...if you check the book. Reread those very early chapters. Do you have a copy with you in Germany?

(Xray, same question I asked Dragonfly - what language did you read it in - and when did you last reread parts of it?)

I read it in English, but only once so far, and a very short time ago.

As for rereading parts, I'm leafing through it often to quote as precisely from it as possible.

I have the copy right here, have found the passage with the bracelet (on page 37 in my harcover ed. (Part I, Non-Contradiction, chapter 2 The Chain), and am looking for those other passages.

Imo at the time of the episode with the bracelet, Lillian has already built up a lot of frustration because Rearden seems to be married to his job more than to her.

On page 159, we learn more about how Hank Rearden perceived his relationship to his wife right from the start.

"It was the difficulty of the conquest that made him want Lillian. She seemed to be a woman who expected and deserved a pedestal, this wanted to make him want to drag her down to his bed. To drag her down, were the words in his mind; they gave him a dark pleasure, like the sense of victory worth winning.

He could not understand why - he thought it was an obscene conflict, the sign of some secret depravity within him - why he felt at the same time a profound pride is at the thought of granting to a woman the title of his wife. The feeling was solemn and shining, it was almost as if he wished to honor a woman by the act of possessig her."

A few paragraphs further down, it says:

"His desire for her had died in the first week of their marriage."

Is it a wonder then that Lillian remained sexually unresponsive to such a man?

Ms. Xray:

Oh, so you mean before Hank became, for lack of a better word "a Randian" in the novel? So your point is that he was a "depraved man" because he was "a non-Randian"? I am completely confused now.

Was he still "depraved", in your opinion, when he and Dagny made love?

Was he ever non-depraved?

Where did his concept of depravity originate?

You have raised significant doubts in my mind finally, please elucidate.

Adam

[Philip Coates]

Subject: The Last Part of Atlas Shrugged - post #2

For decades, I've heard the related charges that Rand is cold and unfeeling, is all black and white or cartoonish, doesn't care about ordinary people but only giant-scale, cardboard heroes and villains. (And now, are these charges simply being repeated in the new biographies? Certainly they are in many current reviews.)

And I thought, well it's a really long book and I don't remember everything in it so well. So maybe there's a lot of truth to it, at least to some extent.

But what has been surprising to me is the degree to which much of this is untrue. Now, as I reread the book, and I see the kindness and thoughtfulness and generosity of Rearden toward the Wet Nurse and Dagny toward Cherryl, I find that I understandably had focused more on the major characters and major conflicts. They are dramatic and drive the action. But Rand devotes a lot of space to the lives and struggles of the minor characters, the less heroic or less clear-thinking or less rational ones. The novel is much more 'balanced' in that way than I remember.

Case in point: The speech by John Galt is page 936-993, or 58 pages (Signet paperback). But there is a section centering primarily around Cherryl, page 805-843, or 39 pages. Just like the speech, that is an awful lot of pages to center around one topic. I wouldn't have fully realized how much interest Rand has in developing, discussing, empathizing with a second-level character if I hadn't added up the pages. (That doesn't even include the pages devoted to Cherryl in other parts of the book --- and wholly excludes the also detailed, and equally sympathetic, discussion of the Wet Nurse and other second-level characters like Dave? and his lost child.) Here's Dagny, from p. 824 on, when Cherryl -- whose only contact had been to insult her -- now fleeing from her husband, Dagny's brother, knocks on her door uninvited and unannounced. Dagny, who very much has her own problems and her own forms of torture, lets her in and is willing to listen, to talk, to be a firend, to give her shelter, to help ==>

"..even coming here is only another presumption...so I can't even cancel the debt.." [Cherryl]

...the unsmiling earnestness of her [Dagny's] voice like a hand extended in support, knowing that a smile would upset some precarious balance, "But it does make up for it, and I do want to hear it."

...Dagny said slowly, "Of course I forgive it."

...[Cherryl having made her little speech is turning to leave- "that was all, Miss Taggart"] "Sit down."...Dagny allowed herself the first touch of a smile.."Cherryl, my name is Dagny."

..."I didn't know whether I should." "We're sisters, aren't we?" "No! Not through Jim!" "No, through our own choice. Sit down, Cherryl."

...[Dagny] "You've had a terrible time, haven't you?"

..."I feel terribly sorry for you, Cherryl, and I'd like to help you -- not because you suffer, but because you haven't deserved to suffer."

..."Dagny I'm afraid of them.."...Dagny came forward swiftly to sit on the arm of her chair and seize her shoulder in a steadying grasp....."I'll help you to understand."

...Prompted by a sudden, causeless certainty, Dagny said sharply, "Cherryl, I don't want you to go home tonight."

..."May I come back to talk to you again?" "Of course.".. "Will you promise me that you'll come back?"

[End Quotes]

Edited October 27, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Xray]

Ms. Xray:

Oh, so you mean before Hank became, for lack of a better word "a Randian" in the novel? So your point is that he was a "depraved man" because he was "a non-Randian"? I am completely confused now.

Was he still "depraved", in your opinion, when he and Dagny made love?

Was he ever non-depraved?

Where did his concept of depravity originate?

You have raised significant doubts in my mind finally, please elucidate.

Mr. Selene:

Both Hank and Lillian are creations of Rand's mind, and it is very clear that she preferred her fictional character Rearden over her fictional character Lillian, no matter how 'depraved' Rearden saw himself.

Was he still "depraved", in your opinion, when he and Dagny made love?

He speaks to Dagny about having damned "their physical desire as mutal shame" in the beginning. (p. 857)

Where did his concept of depravity originate?

IIRC, the novel does not elaborate on why Rearden came to see himself that way.

Jmpo, but the scene where Rearden serenely accepts Dagny chosing John Galt over him is (even if one takes into accout that the novel's characters mostly serve as 'voices' for Rand's philosophy) - a very unconvincing piece of fiction about a romantic relatioship. It is all the more strange since what immediately precedes the scene is a page-long speech by Rearden about how much he loves Dagny. She is the love of his life, the book leaves no doubt about that.

But despite all that, Rearden accepts Dagny having chosen another man; he kisses her hand and "his face had the serenity of pure strength, it had the look she had seen in the faces of the men in the valley."

One could almost think Rearden is an "altruist". ;)

Edited October 27, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Ms. Xray:

Oh, so you mean before Hank became, for lack of a better word "a Randian" in the novel? So your point is that he was a "depraved man" because he was "a non-Randian"? I am completely confused now.

Was he still "depraved", in your opinion, when he and Dagny made love?

Was he ever non-depraved?

Where did his concept of depravity originate?

You have raised significant doubts in my mind finally, please elucidate.

Mr. Selene:

Both Hank and Lillian are creations of Rand's mind, and it is very clear that she preferred her fictional character Rearden over her fictional character Lillian, no matter how 'depraved' Rearden saw himself.

Was he still "depraved", in your opinion, when he and Dagny made love?

He speaks to Dagny about having damned "their physical desire as mutal shame" in the beginning. (p. 857)

Where did his concept of depravity originate?

IIRC, the novel does not elaborate on why Rearden came to see himself that way.

But jmpo, the scene where Rearden serenely accepts Dagny chosing John Galt over him is the most unconvincing piece of fiction about a romantic relatioship I have ever read in my life. It is all the more strange since what immediately precedes the scene is a page-long speech by Rearden about how much he loves Dagny. She is the love of his life, the book leaves no doubt about that.

But despite all that, Rearden accepts Dagny having chosen another man, he kisses her hand and "his face had the serenity of pure strength, it had the look she had seen in the faces of the men in the valley."

One could almost think Rearden is an "altruist". ;)

Ms. Xray:

I asked you the questions.

Your not answering the questions that I asked you.

I have read Atlas Shrugged more times than the years you have been on this planet.

You regurgitating Rand quotes is not answering the questions as to what is depravity, etc.

If you are self conscious about taking a personal position, I am fine with that. Just refuse to answer.

If you were an American you would have your 5th and 14th amendment rights to assert.

I await, patiently, for your answers.

Adam

[Dragonfly]

Subject: The Last Part of Atlas Shrugged - post #2

For decades, I've heard the related charges that Rand is cold and unfeeling, is all black and white or cartoonish, doesn't care about ordinary people but only giant-scale, cardboard heroes and villains. (And now, are these charges simply being repeated in the new biographies? Certainly they are in many current reviews.)

And I thought, well it's a really long book and I don't remember everything in it so well. So maybe there's a lot of truth to it, at least to some extent.

But what has been surprising to me is the degree to which much of this is untrue.

Well, that raises the question "why do so many people then have those criticisms?" Is it while they are all "Rand-haters" and are only looking for nitpicks to diminish her work? I don't think so. I think this is with many people a honest reaction and it represents the total impression the book has made on them. And that is more than the empathy we see in the scenes with the Wet Nurse and with Cherryl. It's also that of the gloating description of the passengers in the train that is wrecked in the tunnel, the tyrannical behavior of Galt in the Gulch, the way Dagny indifferently killed a guard who couldn't make up his mind, the absence of children (sure, if you look good enough you'll find a few children as a token, but the fact that most people don't remember them is significant, and as far as I can remember none of the heroes has children - flashbacks of the heroes in their youth are not a substitute), the shabby treatment by the heroes of Eddie Willers, the utter indifference to the fact that the world is practically coming to an end with millions if not billions of people killed (reminds me of Noah's story, where the loving God kills almost every living being on Earth to start with a new and better world), which only elicits Galt's dry comment "the road is cleared". Is it then so strange that to many people the total impression is of coldness and cruelty? After all, the fact that Hitler was nice to his dog and friendly to children and even had moments of gallant behavior is not enough to give a positive total evaluation of the man either.

When I read AS in my youth, although those negative aspects gave me sometimes a somewhat uneasy feeling, I tended to ignore them mostly, probably too much hypnotized by what I found attractive in the story. It was only later, when I saw better what really happened that these points have become much more important to me and I now can understand very well those negative reactions which I found puzzling at first. I think that such a shift in appreciation when you're growing up is not uncommon.

[Brant Gaede]

Subject: The Last Part of Atlas Shrugged - post #2

For decades, I've heard the related charges that Rand is cold and unfeeling, is all black and white or cartoonish, doesn't care about ordinary people but only giant-scale, cardboard heroes and villains. (And now, are these charges simply being repeated in the new biographies? Certainly they are in many current reviews.)

And I thought, well it's a really long book and I don't remember everything in it so well. So maybe there's a lot of truth to it, at least to some extent.

But what has been surprising to me is the degree to which much of this is untrue.

Well, that raises the question "why do so many people then have those criticisms?" Is it while they are all "Rand-haters" and are only looking for nitpicks to diminish her work? I don't think so. I think this is with many people a honest reaction and it represents the total impression the book has made on them. And that is more than the empathy we see in the scenes with the Wet Nurse and with Cherryl. It's also that of the gloating description of the passengers in the train that is wrecked in the tunnel, the tyrannical behavior of Galt in the Gulch, the way Dagny indifferently killed a guard who couldn't make up his mind, the absence of children (sure, if you look good enough you'll find a few children as a token, but the fact that most people don't remember them is significant, and as far as I can remember none of the heroes has children - flashbacks of the heroes in their youth are not a substitute), the shabby treatment by the heroes of Eddie Willers, the utter indifference to the fact that the world is practically coming to an end with millions if not billions of people killed (reminds me of Noah's story, where the loving God kills almost every living being on Earth to start with a new and better world), which only elicits Galt's dry comment "the road is cleared". Is it then so strange that to many people the total impression is of coldness and cruelty? After all, the fact that Hitler was nice to his dog and friendly to children and even had moments of gallant behavior is not enough to give a positive total evaluation of the man either.

When I read AS in my youth, although those negative aspects gave me sometimes a somewhat uneasy feeling, I tended to ignore them mostly, probably too much hypnotized by what I found attractive in the story. It was only later, when I saw better what really happened that these points have become much more important to me and I now can understand very well those negative reactions which I found puzzling at first. I think that such a shift in appreciation when you're growing up is not uncommon.

There's truth here but some is disputatious. Atlas Shrugged was too much as a literary-philosophical project. Sort of like putting too much food in your mouth and finding it hard to chew and swallow. I think it put the author up on the rocks, frankly. I certainly think she was better as a person than your criticisms imply. Take the tunnel disaster. Was it really the people on the train or the ideas on the train she was after? There is a problem with Eddie Willers' fate--I mean he was too disposable--but that's balanced by the overall portrayal of the Wet Nurse. If Rand had had a sophisticated understanding of human psychology the novel would have been so different as to be unrecognizable. It is not up to Rand to humanize our relations with others. That's our job.

--Brant

[Selene]

Well put sir!

"It is not up to Rand to humanize our relations with others. That's our job."

There discovering the unknown self.

Adam

[Xray]

I have read Atlas Shrugged more times than the years you have been on this planet.

Your point being? Is it some kind of Bible for you?

Edited October 27, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

I have read Atlas Shrugged more times than the years you have been on this planet.

Your point being? Is it some kind of Bible for you?

Ms. Xray:

I asked you the questions.

Your not answering the questions that I asked you.

Are you choosing not to answer the questions put to you?

Yes or No. Its real simple.

Adam

[jeffrey smith]

Jmpo, but the scene where Rearden serenely accepts Dagny chosing John Galt over him is (even if one takes into accout that the novel's characters mostly serve as 'voices' for Rand's philosophy) - a very unconvincing piece of fiction about a romantic relatioship. It is all the more strange since what immediately precedes the scene is a page-long speech by Rearden about how much he loves Dagny. She is the love of his life, the book leaves no doubt about that.

But despite all that, Rearden accepts Dagny having chosen another man; he kisses her hand and "his face had the serenity of pure strength, it had the look she had seen in the faces of the men in the valley."

One could almost think Rearden is an "altruist". ;)

One human being loves another human being. He has the highest regard for the beloved, which means he is willing to let his beloved do what she wants to do, without his restraint or interference: and if his beloved loves another man more than she loves him, he respects her choice because it is her choice. The reasons that she loves that other man are part of what makes him (the original lover) love her, and therefore to be rejoiced over, not regretted.

What is unconvincing about that?

[Hmm, this is the second time in one week I'm defending Rand the novelist. Lucifer must be wearing a ski cap right about now.]

Jeffrey S.

[Selene]

Jmpo, but the scene where Rearden serenely accepts Dagny chosing John Galt over him is (even if one takes into accout that the novel's characters mostly serve as 'voices' for Rand's philosophy) - a very unconvincing piece of fiction about a romantic relatioship. It is all the more strange since what immediately precedes the scene is a page-long speech by Rearden about how much he loves Dagny. She is the love of his life, the book leaves no doubt about that.

But despite all that, Rearden accepts Dagny having chosen another man; he kisses her hand and "his face had the serenity of pure strength, it had the look she had seen in the faces of the men in the valley."

One could almost think Rearden is an "altruist". ;)

One human being loves another human being. He has the highest regard for the beloved, which means he is willing to let his beloved do what she wants to do, without his restraint or interference: and if his beloved loves another man more than she loves him, he respects her choice because it is her choice. The reasons that she loves that other man are part of what makes him (the original lover) love her, and therefore to be rejoiced over, not regretted.

What is unconvincing about that?

[Hmm, this is the second time in one week I'm defending Rand the novelist. Lucifer must be wearing a ski cap right about now.]

Jeffrey S.

Lucifer must be wearing a ski cap right about now.

I like that one.

Additionally, perhaps Ms. Xray cannot fathom that concept of love.

Adam

[Philip Coates]

> perhaps Ms. Xray cannot fathom that concept of love.

Adam, personal attacks or 'digs' simply obscure the debate: The merits of Atlas are a serious (and also interesting) subject. I would hope nothing would blur them or raise the anger level.

[Philip Coates]

Subject: DF and Xray Throw Everything But the Kitchen Sink at the Novel! - Heroic Phil Swats Down The Most Recent Bad Arguments and Misreadings!!.....Stay Tuned for More Crazy Fun

1. XRAY THROWS WILD PITCHES

> But despite all that, Rearden accepts Dagny having chosen another man, he kisses her hand and "his face had the serenity of pure strength, it had the look she had seen in the faces of the men in the valley." [Xray]

Well, what's the alternative? Crying and screaming and raging at her "I don't want it to be true. You don't have the right to choose someone else. I hate you!!!" Remember that he has had plenty of time to process it, to do his crying, to boil over, because he understood what was the only thing that would have kept her away and she spoke of their relationship in the past tense.

Moreover, remember that this is stylized. It's Rand's view of Rearden's deep strength and of how people ought to accept other people's choices. As for his speech telling her he loved her, as he put it he had to say it when things were over because he never said it at the beginning. When things end, if you don't end up screaming at each other, maybe you can remain friends. And it's respect for the romantic partner. Too bad more people can't do what Rearden was a 'big' enough man to do.

> the scene where Rearden serenely accepts Dagny chosing John Galt over him is the most unconvincing piece of fiction about a romantic relatioship I have ever read in my life.

Xray, I'm sorry if you haven't seen people doing this in real life...I have.

The way you see Rearden act toward Dagny -- we have a simple word for it in English:

Showing "class."

2> CHANGEUP PITCHER DRAGONFLY THROWS CURVEBALLS, HOOKS, AND SINKERS

Phil--> charges that Rand is cold and unfeeling, is all black and white or cartoonish, doesn't care about ordinary people but only giant-scale, cardboard heroes and villains.... what has been surprising to me is the degree to which much of this is untrue.

Dragonfly--> Well, that raises the question "why do so many people then have those criticisms?"

Why do most critics think the greatest novel of the 20th Century is Ulysses? Why do the common people trust Obama? Truth is not determined by majority rule or taking a poll. It is determined by facts. I gave you facts about Dagny and Hank's empathy and kindness. You can't just ignore what I said and sweep it aside to go on to another subject of point of attack.

> I think this is with many people a honest reaction

People's positive reaction to Obama is also their honest reaction. It is possible to -misread- Atlas Shrugged, to drop context, to not read it carefully enough, or to read it in a second language so that you and Xray miss a lot.

> the world is practically coming to an end with millions if not billions of people killed...reminds me of Noah's story, where the loving God kills almost every living being on Earth to start with a new and better world

First, Jesus Christ what a ridiculous exaggeration!! that's not accurate for two reasons: a/ Most people don't die even in a famine or drought, even in the third world. They had been surviving (unpleasantly) in the "people's states" for years before the start of the novel and did in Cambodia, China under Mao, etc. They eat roots, ration food, spend zero money, shiver in patched clothes, kill their cattle or hunt squirrels, etc. Plus there is black market smuggling and trade, even with heavy-handed government. b/ the time involved is short - they are preparing to come back now that the government has collapsed as the novel ends and Galt says they are going back to the earth. They will be able to rebuild the railroads, use Rearden metal, use Galt's motor, start new businesses and transportation much faster than the fumbling bureaucrats wou/d. So in fact, very few will actually die.

Second, and much more important, same question as I asked Xray about Rearden's response. What's the alternative? Accept enslavement of the entire planet because your rebellion will result in death? "Oh gee, I guess I have to surrender all my wealth and property and be a slave because I'm an altruist and don't want people hurt?"

> the way Dagny indifferently killed a guard who couldn't make up his mind

That's not what happened. He was possibly about to blow the whole operation but would not surrender, they could have apprehended and killed. Time is of the essence in a guerrilla invasion. If you can't disarm, someone can and will sound the alarm.

> the absence of children

So what? In a novel about the fight between adults over economics and government that's already long enough, what purpose would mandate include tykes? Do you have some genius eight year old in mind who invents a new metal?

Edited October 28, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Selene]

> perhaps Ms. Xray cannot fathom that concept of love.

Adam, personal attacks or 'digs' simply obscure the debate: The merits of Atlas are a serious (and also interesting) subject. I would hope nothing would blur them or raise the anger level.

Do you have a code book where you can read intent into "...perhaps Ms. Xray cannot fathom that concept of love."

Adam

[Philip Coates]

I just realized that Jeffrey made some good points similar to mine in 1. above. (He did this because I bribed him with no ski caps involved. Once the payola runs out he will revert to the team of the bad guys.)

[BaalChatzaf]

Why do Dagny and Hank assume that the motor had been invented by a single man, as opposed to a collaborative effort by an engineering team? Of course, it could have been either, but they automatically know that it was created by a single man. Why?

Even with a team there is usually one person who is the spark-plug or team captain that is necessary for coordinating the other members. Every hunting party needs a leader (a leader, not a dictator). This kind of team work is as old as homo-sapien, the species. It is one of the ways our kind survived the Ice Age.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Philip Coates]

I'm still waiting for a response from the people (Xray or DF or Jeffrey?) who said Rand doesn't care about ordinary people and lacks empathy or kindness -- to my post #184 where I quote at great length from how Dagny treats Cherryl.

I'm still waiting for a response from the people (Xray or DF or Jeffrey?) who said Rand is only concerned with black and white, with giant-scale heroes and villains -- to my post #184 where I point out that (in addition to the parts about the Wet Nurse) almost an entire chapter is centered around Cherryl ==>

"Good points, Phil. I guess I hadn't read every part of the novel carefully enough. I was probably flipping pages rapidly, especially through the last third of the book to see what was going to happen as the action parts build to a climax."

Edited October 28, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Xray]

I certainly think she was better as a person than your criticisms imply. Take the tunnel disaster. Was it really the people on the train or the ideas on the train she was after?

Imo whom Rand was after was the people as the believers in the ideas she disapproved of. All her ideological "enemies", often called simply "they": the "looters", "altruists", "moochers" or whatever odd words she pulled out of her language drawer to label people whose values differed from her own.

The scene in the tunnel where they perish is a both gloating and primitive judgement day fantasy put in writing, in which those whose values are different from Ayn Rand's get what they deserve.

Edited October 28, 2009 by Xray