Skylark02

Hank Rearden was not "really kissing" Dagny. Dagny was a bit miffed that Hank had not recognized her as anything more than a business associate - "Dagny is leaving the party before she loses her composure. What she has slowly come to realize is that she came to the party hoping to make Rearden aware of her as a woman, not just a business partner. She was distraught when Rearden responds to her with indifference, and upset when Francisco is the only one who sees her as an object of sexual desire." Before rushing to judgment, please read all the evidence, including the synopsized version at the link I provided, as well as the quotes provided by Dragonfly above, such as this one: "She [Lillian] wanted to force upon him [Hank] the suffering of dishonor—but his own sense of honor was her only weapon of enforcement." The "secret weapon."

Nice replies, thoughtful and thought-provoking. My insight is that Lilian's weapon against Hank was her contempt for his work, which he accepted. When he comes in late to dinner, his mother asks where he has been and Lilian says, "At the mills" in the same tone of voice that another woman would say "At the bar." At root, he cannot accept her contempt, but neither can he overcome it with the right words (the right ideas). As he is breaking free, he challenges her on this point. When he notices the rise of Dagny's breast under her jacket, he muses that he is just a crass materialist. Dagny finds that an odd judgment, as she has gotten past the "crass materialist" nonsense already. Not knowing how Hank feels about her, she cannot perceive the context of his statement. The chain -- what it signifies to her -- changes that. Note that at this juncture, Hank takes Lilian's side, literally standing by her side for the rest of the celebration. I agree basically with "sanction of the victim" but I see that your problem with it is that it is broad and high and not specific. I don't see how "sanction of the victim" can be a weapon. It is, more or less, the route through which Lillian (as well as government moochers and looters) can attack Rearden: a route which he himself has opened up to them. But that route is not the weapon. The "secret weapon" consists of any of Rearden's own virtuous attributes. I decided that "honor" was foremost of Rearden's virtues. Twisting one's virtues into vices is a favorite technique of moochers such as Lillian.

Thank you Dragonfly, you did some nice research there. I feel very hampered in my research by the fact that my Objectivist Research Cd-Rom doesn't work on Windows 7, which I have now, yet it worked on Vista. Perhaps these quotes from AS are relevant:

Brant, It's a long chapter, but the synopsis is useful for boiling it all down to some main events. Don't you agree that Lillian had found something to use against Rearden? I don't know that it's necessary to read so much to discern this. The metal bracelet was simply the latest weapon in her arsenal. [Edit: it was such a useful weapon to Lillian that at a later point in the novel she tried to re-acquire it from Dagny.]

My purpose here was to get someone's thoughts on the idea that Rearden's honor was the secret weapon used against him, but I wanted to start with a more general question. Yes, the notion of a secret weapon is in some third-party's words, not mine. Perhaps the idea that Lillian had a "secret weapon" should be debated first? This didn't occur to me, as the premise sounds so obvious despite the fact that the synopsis author used his or her own words - and not Rand's word - to describe it. But I can still reply to your idea that the "secret weapon" is the sanction of the victim premise. I believe that Lillian had something to use against her husband, call it a "secret weapon" or what-have-you. And it is definitely the case that twisting one's virtues into vices is a major premise of AS. I just don't see "sanction of the victim" as being a weapon, since none of the characters at the party (except Francisco) seems to know anything about it. It could, on the other hand, be Rearden's lack of knowledge of the premise that Lillian used against him, but that sounds too far-fetched. She would not pick on him for any philosophical lacking. Observe that if it wasn't Lillian using Rearden's own values against him, it was some government stooges.

I have thought of a way to formalize this point. Virtue (in this case, honor) can be twisted into vice, but if and only if one allows it (the sanction of the victim).

The sanction of the victim. Dagny was having none of it. She knew the real value of Rearden Metal which was far in excess of any diamond bracelet. By defending the value of the metal she was defending her coming use of it--her valuation of it--and by implication Rearden himself. What Dagny didn't then know was how both she and Rearden were sanctioning the state through their rational business activities. It's basically a sophisticated use of foreshadowing. by the author. --Brant you'd have done better by yourself in figuring this sort of thing out for yourself as with most if not all problems, and if you already knew the answer ...? Brant, If I thought it was that easy, I wouldn't have asked. The "Sanction of the Victim" premise is a major theme, but as a general formula it is too broad to serve as a "secret weapon" even if it applies. And anyway, we don't know that Dagny was thinking in those terms or even that she knew of such an idea at that point. And the point was never that the metal in the bracelet had significant monetary value, it was considered "priceless" as being the first thing made of Rearden Metal. Any "normal" person would consider trading a diamond bracelet for a piece of metal, even this one, to be a major financial sacrifice. Perhaps it had mostly symbolic, not monetary, value - it symbolized the thinking, creative mind. But Lillian was somehow using the bracelet to undercut Rearden by devaluing the bracelet's symbolic worth to him. She was devaluing the bracelet, Rearden Metal, and indirectly, Rearden himself. So how does this play into the sanction of the victim premise? It has much to do with the twisting of virtues into vices, or in this case, of using one of Rearden's virtues against him. This was another major theme. One of those virtues, which is only implicit throughout much of the novel, is Rearden's sense of HONOR. This sense of honor sustains him while at the same time limiting him. Honor keeps Rearden in an unhappy marriage where Lillian commonly used his sense of honor against him, holding him as a kind of hostage to his own value-system. So yes, while Rearden was an unwitting proponent of the sanction of the victim premise, he did so on the basis of defending his wife and his marriage. His sense of honor kept him from seeing the truth of his own victimhood. His sense of honor prevented him from seeing that he did not deserve the abuse Lillian was dealing out to him through the metal bracelet. Lillian's secret weapon was her ability to use Rearden's sense of honor against him.

I came across an unfinished online synopsis of Atlas Shrugged. I am eager for it to be finished so I can read the whole thing at once. I've read the novel a few times but a summary like this makes it easier to discuss with new readers of the novel. I have a question about the synopsis found at My link In the chapter "The Non-commercial" - "Dagny hears Lillian denigrating the bracelet of Rearden Metal that she has been wearing all night as a joke, carefully pronouncing its oddity in the midst of an extravagant display of excessive jewelry. Lillian jokes that it is supposed to be priceless because it is the first thing ever made from Rearden Metal, but she would gladly exchange it for a common diamond bracelet any time. In an act of supreme audacity, Dagny removes her diamond bracelet and offers it in exchange, saying that if Lillian is not a coward she would take the offer. Lillian is taken aback but accepts the trade, not realizing that this act would ultimately undermine her secret weapon against Rearden." My question is: What secret weapon did Lillian hold against Rearden? And how did trading away the bracelet of Rearden Metal ultimately undermine it?

No dichotomy here. It's a numbers game. "...even though one of them will lose in that particular encounter" (AR) - "particular encounter", is the key, here. I've been flipping through my old "Free To Choose" (Milton Friedman, 1980) and it really is a good,easy, read on economics and freedom. He writes "Two classes of workers are not protected by anyone : workers who have only one possible employer, and workers who have no possible employer". He cites Babe Ruth as an example of the first - only the New York Yankees could afford him! More relevant is this : "The most reliable and effective protection for most workers is provided by the existence of many employers." (Of course he uses "protection" advisedly, being opposed to State and Trade Union involvement.) For sure, Rand's favorites were the Creators, but she did not see employees as fighting for a job, but being able to use their perseverance, improving their skills to make them better equipped in the present market, and being able to take advantage of the huge numbers of job opportunities. Every worker might 'lose' many times, but he only has to 'win' once. I don't understand how the term "dichotomy" can apply to a social context. We all live under the same roof, economically speaking. And I certainly didn't imply any social dichotomy. I'm not saying that the genius and the worker can't co-exist in the same society with their two very different respective ethical systems in play. What I'm saying is that the ethos of the genius is incompatible with the ethos of the worker, and vice versa. True, wrong choice of word. But still, I don't understand your confusion over the two "ethos-es". These two - 'Worker,' and 'Creator'- are united under the same roof of freedom, I believe, (or should be). Besides, life isn't that simple : I had a friend once, a high-rise construction worker, who was a genius. (He introduced me to Ayn Rand,btw). Also, in the course of work, I've met many CEO's, some of whom are uncreative dummies. Confusion? Not in this case, anyway. You will admit there are two ethical systems at work here. Regarding your two examples, the genius construction worker is living well below his intellectual means. I just think that Objectivism would consider his choice of workplace immoral unless he is only trying to work his way through college in order to better himself. But if he is not, in the long run, trying to live up to his intellectual stature, then he is living an immoral life, according to Objectivism. The uncreative-dummy CEO may have other things going for him, such as a strong will and great tenacity along with strong social ties. It depends on the person. For all I know, his position in life might merely be the result of nepotism.

No dichotomy here. It's a numbers game. "...even though one of them will lose in that particular encounter" (AR) - "particular encounter", is the key, here. I've been flipping through my old "Free To Choose" (Milton Friedman, 1980) and it really is a good,easy, read on economics and freedom. He writes "Two classes of workers are not protected by anyone : workers who have only one possible employer, and workers who have no possible employer". He cites Babe Ruth as an example of the first - only the New York Yankees could afford him! More relevant is this : "The most reliable and effective protection for most workers is provided by the existence of many employers." (Of course he uses "protection" advisedly, being opposed to State and Trade Union involvement.) For sure, Rand's favorites were the Creators, but she did not see employees as fighting for a job, but being able to use their perseverance, improving their skills to make them better equipped in the present market, and being able to take advantage of the huge numbers of job opportunities. Every worker might 'lose' many times, but he only has to 'win' once. I don't understand how the term "dichotomy" can apply to a social context. We all live under the same roof, economically speaking. And I certainly didn't imply any social dichotomy. I'm not saying that the genius and the worker can't co-exist in the same society with their two very different respective ethical systems in play. What I'm saying is that the ethos of the genius is incompatible with the ethos of the worker, and vice versa.

Sounds to me, from what I've read here on this thread, that Rand propounded two different ethics. The two men in her example live by the ethic of animalistic competition, but the creator lives by the ethic of rational creativity or genius.

I didn't have the desire to drag the discussion down into religion. It's just that you can also say "when everybody shares the same faith" for "when everyone is rational." You seem to be misconceiving religion as ruled by haphazard emotion, or that faith leads to haphazard emotion. In my experience, I have seen Christians as being very self-controlled. And Islamic extremists act out violently only after much thoughtful consideration and planning, and not merely out of impulse. When discussing the conflicts of men's interests it has to be a response, in this context, to existentialism by default, simply because it is not a response to Marxist belief in the conflicts between classes. I know it's off topic, but I'll say that your views about Islam and Christianity are a little skewed. You're looking at the best of Christians and the worst of Muslims. Look at how much violence Christians perpetrated in Eastern Europe or Southern Asia. Belfast is another example. People are people are people, and I don't know that spiritual culture takes a defining role in violence. When these two "cultural groups" go head to head in many minor countries or throughout history, I've never seen either side act more violent (or more benevolent) than the other. I did mention the violent side of Christianity.

GS, You'll be pleased to hear that Rand agrees. I looked up in "The AR Lexicon" this statement: "Competition is a by-product of productive work, NOT its goal. A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, NOT by the desire to beat others." THere is more there that is of interest. Let the creative men achieve. But most men are not creative. The two men competing for the same job in Rand's example should be allowed to strive for excellence in their own way: through competition. We can't all be creators. Oh, I'm not anti-competition, I just don't think it should be regarded as the ideal for man. Look at the way science has progressed with scientists struggling to come up with the best theory but not to beat the other guy so much as to feel a sense of satisfaction. But if the ideal is a non-competitive sense of satisfaction, if competing even against oneself is a non-ideal, then why pursue competition? Why have an Olympics?

I'm not sure that I completely agree here Skylark. I think modern Christians simply do not live their philosophy as consistently as they used to (see the dark ages). The Islamic world has not experienced an enlightenment let alone a renaissance. I see you giving separate arguments for each religion. With the exception of a few anti-abortion fanatics I don't see modern Christians as particularly violent, and if they have had a profound change of heart (which is a requirement in that religion), then the individuals are compelled toward internal consistency versus the old life of internal psychological conflicts. Without experiencing a change of heart, they are not truly Christians no matter how much holy water was dumped on their heads, and the result will be inconsistency and internal conflict between superficially-held belief systems. Islamicists don't need to be enlightened to make my argument work, they only need to be consistent. To undergo a post-renaissance enlightenment is not a requirement for consistency. Their faith, consistently pounded into them from birth as a cultish form of brainwashing, is sufficient for the latter.

I didn't have the desire to drag the discussion down into religion. It's just that you can also say "when everybody shares the same faith" for "when everyone is rational." You seem to be misconceiving religion as ruled by haphazard emotion, or that faith leads to haphazard emotion. In my experience, I have seen Christians as being very self-controlled. And Islamic extremists act out violently only after much thoughtful consideration and planning, and not merely out of impulse. When discussing the conflicts of men's interests it has to be a response, in this context, to existentialism by default, simply because it is not a response to Marxist belief in the conflicts between classes.

Perhaps. I'm not a Christian so I don't know. Just because everybody operates by the same value system doesn't mean that the value system works. Or more accurately, just because everybody operates by the same methodology for determining a value system (rationality, faith, etc) doesn't mean that the methodology results in a widespread operable system of human interaction. For example, rationally we can understand how people make decisions and thus can interact with them and understand our interactions with them. But if those decisions are based on values that are created through haphazard emotions, then there is no way to really understand how others operate. People have conflicts, those conflicts represent conflicts between values that arise from potentially different sources (even faith-based experiences lack congruity), and so the world doesn't work with a clear logical order. Conflicts in Objectivism supposedly do not produce irrationalities and contradictions, whereas if we use a source for determining values other than rationality, God knows what is occurring when conflicts arise. I don't think Christianity or Islam was created through haphazard emotions. From what I've seen, a great deal of thought was put into their creation. So far, the only social difference I see is in your last statement, differences in Objectivism (as with the few Schisms that have been produced so far) do not lead to a violence which would contradict its retaliation premise. Christianity has put forth a message of peace, yet its history has been riddled with great acts of violence. And we all know that Islam is hopelessly violent and aggressive. What's worse about Islam is that it is not *mindlessly* or *haphazardly* violent and aggressive - it is quite mindful and systematic about destruction, as incisive as a surgeon's scalpel, not *haphazard* at all. Its value-system works in that it accomplishes what it sets out to accomplish: the spread of Islam and the unity of its people around the ideas of global domination aided by the destruction of the US and Israel. Objectivism, despite the recent popularity of AS, has not accomplished much so far, but rather quickly fell prey to internally destructive schisms.

GS, You'll be pleased to hear that Rand agrees. I looked up in "The AR Lexicon" this statement: "Competition is a by-product of productive work, NOT its goal. A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, NOT by the desire to beat others." THere is more there that is of interest. Let the creative men achieve. But most men are not creative. The two men competing for the same job in Rand's example should be allowed to strive for excellence in their own way: through competition. We can't all be creators.

Christopher, As far as that goes, the two men, or all of society, could be Christians holding to the same values.

GS - rational animal.

On thinking over your reply some more (I'm having a difficult time understanding it), I think Rand is trying to redirect the idea of interests, not the idea of conflict, onto another context. If both men are interested in obtaining a job, then this "conflict" is a beneficial one because without it there would be no business to provide a job for either of them. They should therefore be interested in the "conflict," not opposed to it, as integral to the way business operates. Hi Skylark, I do think this explains exactly what Rand was trying to say. I'm just not sure I totally buy it. It's almost congruent with the Nietzschean idea that "that which does not kill you makes you stronger." Ask any businessman if he is excited about a new competition, he most often will not tell you "it's to our interest, it keeps me honest, if there were no competition I would be lazy and I would have to close my doors." It does not matter if the competition involves AC vs. DC current, Bluray vs. HD or VHS vs. Betamax. In the case of AC vs. DC, this competition ("without clash of interests") did not bring about honesty and respect between the competitors (especially Edison). Aside from my points regarding the component of supply and demand in regard to labor, the crux of the argument depends on clearly defining what actually is in one's self-interest. Obviously the free market (Laissez-faire Capitalism) is to everyone's self-interest, even if competing in the market can mean failure. The fact that failure is possible is not a disadvantage, if success were guaranteed, would it really be success? The competitions you mentioned brought about change that was good for the economy. And if people like Edison detested the competition and considered it a black vs. white conflict of interests, then so much the better because it encourages more vigorous competition. It's in one's interest for there to be conflicts of interest? This sounds like those that argue that it is in one's self-interest to be an altruist. The primary purpose to enter business is one's own success, if that indirectly benefits others (the economy) fine. I think I'm going to have to spend some time really thinking about the concept of conflict and interest. When I started this thread, my primary point was to question the principle that a business would have to close its doors if there was not more than a single applicant for a specific job. That principle is a different issue than if there really are conflicts of interest between rational men. Looking forward to more posts! Randall, Thanks for your interest, I really appreciate it. It seems you slightly misunderstood me. I didn't say it was in one's interest for there to be conflicts of interests. However, I used the Edison example to show that it is best for capitalism if businessmen believe there is a basic conflict of interests, because this encourages more vigorous competition between them.

On thinking over your reply some more (I'm having a difficult time understanding it), I think Rand is trying to redirect the idea of interests, not the idea of conflict, onto another context. If both men are interested in obtaining a job, then this "conflict" is a beneficial one because without it there would be no business to provide a job for either of them. They should therefore be interested in the "conflict," not opposed to it, as integral to the way business operates. Hi Skylark, I do think this explains exactly what Rand was trying to say. I'm just not sure I totally buy it. It's almost congruent with the Nietzschean idea that "that which does not kill you makes you stronger." Ask any businessman if he is excited about a new competition, he most often will not tell you "it's to our interest, it keeps me honest, if there were no competition I would be lazy and I would have to close my doors." It does not matter if the competition involves AC vs. DC current, Bluray vs. HD or VHS vs. Betamax. In the case of AC vs. DC, this competition ("without clash of interests") did not bring about honesty and respect between the competitors (especially Edison). Aside from my points regarding the component of supply and demand in regard to labor, the crux of the argument depends on clearly defining what actually is in one's self-interest. Obviously the free market (Laissez-faire Capitalism) is to everyone's self-interest, even if competing in the market can mean failure. The fact that failure is possible is not a disadvantage, if success were guaranteed, would it really be success? The competitions you mentioned brought about change that was good for the economy. And if people like Edison detested the competition and considered it a black vs. white conflict of interests, then so much the better because it encourages more vigorous competition.

On thinking over your reply some more (I'm having a difficult time understanding it), I think Rand is trying to redirect the idea of interests, not the idea of conflict, onto another context. If both men are interested in obtaining a job, then this "conflict" is a beneficial one because without it there would be no business to provide a job for either of them. They should therefore be interested in the "conflict," not opposed to it, as integral to the way business operates.

You could say that the very first word of the original quote - context - is being used to obliterate the need for the idea of conflict of principles, whether it is of the Marxist, Existentialist, or any other variety. For Rand, context was pretty much everything. In this case the context is the fact that competition is necessary to further the survival of business. This kind of competition is not the type that goes "all the way down," it is not metaphysical conflict. It just so happens that it DOES take on the Existentialist point of view, even if Rand had no direct interest in opposing it.

Thank you for your compliments. What is really interesting to me about that particular article is where Rand came up with the question of conflicts of men's interests. Who mentioned it first? Why did she consider it an issue? I have batted this question around on another forum before and got nowhere, maybe because it's not really a question for me. The answer seems easy enough. It's just that in the article Rand never discusses why this is or should be an issue to write an essay about. There are two strains of thought in 20th century philosophy which bring up the issue of conflict, a conflict so deep and rigid that it can only be classified as metaphysically given. One strain comes from Existentialism, and the other strain comes from Marxism. The Marxist strain, however, only produced the idea of conflict between classes, it is not a struggle between men per se. Existentialists, on the other hand, will commonly claim that conflicts (of principle) between men are not only the norm, they are inevitable and even necessary for the functioning of society. Rand was implicitly arguing against the Existentialist viewpoint of human relationships.

Dan: Welcome to OL. Great place to think and think out loud. What do you do to sustain the state? Lol. I ask this of everyone. Adam I pay taxes.