Dagny and the Guard

[Alfonso Jones]

In -Atlas Shrugged-, Dagny confronts a guard and threatens him with a loaded gun in order to let the team rescuing John Galt in through the door. The guard cannot make up his mind so Dagny shoots him for NOT MAKING UP HIS MIND!!!!!..

Now that is damned strange. I can see shooting him to prevent him from warning the people inside. In fact, that might have been Dagny's only practical course. Slaying sentries is a time honored way in commando operations which the rescue of John Galt surely was. But killing the poor sod because he vacillated? That is perverse.

Ba'al Chatzaf

What in Atlas Shrugged, anywhere, suggests to you that Dagny Taggart is shooting the guard BECAUSE he didn't make up his mind? My read of the passage was that Dagny shot a man who didn't make up his mind - because he stood between her and Galt. Not because he didn't make up his mind.

The text says:

"But I can't decide! Why me?"

"Because it's your body that's barring my way."

Why not take the character at face value, for what she says - she shot the guard because he barred her from geting to Galt?

Alfonso

Yes Alfonso, why not. Let us continue the text. This from pp 1066 of my paperback edition of AS

Calmly and impersonally she [Dagny], who would have hesitated to fire at an animal, pulled the trigger and fired straight into the heart of a man who wanted to exist without the responsibility of consciousness.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yup. Take the character at face value. The text went on to say her gun had a silencer. She she put her mission in peril by even talking the the guard. If she were serious about the mission she just should have shot him with no gab. In a commando mission the sentries must be silenced without raising an alarm. So either Dagny is an incompetent commando or she is Rand's sock puppet.

BTW, the piece I added, which you left out, is Rand speaking from the position of the Omniscient I, the unseen Narrator of the tale given her opinion of the scene just narrated.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Oh, Bob - sometimes I dont' know if you are being serious or not.

Again, the question: Why did Dagny shoot - by her own statement, because the guard was in her way. Why search for another reason when the obvious one makes sense and is explicitly stated to be the reason by the character? The omniscient narrator (Rand) provides an evaluation of the mental state of the guard. But that doesn't change the stated reason for Taggard shooting.

Alfonso

[Dragonfly]

You ought to choose your words with more care then, you said

This is indeed the most perverse passage in AS.

According to dictionary.com

per·verse

- willfully determined or disposed to go counter to what is expected or desired; contrary.

- persistent or obstinate in what is wrong.

- turned away from or rejecting what is right, good, or proper; wicked or corrupt

Counter to what is expected, or persistent in what is wrong, rejecting what is right, etc. i.e. YOU think it SHOULD have gone differently, and it was WRONG to have gone THIS WAY.

I say again, amazing how so many people (including you) could have done a better job writing Atlas Shrugged, even though you've accomplished nothing of the sort. Perhaps I am wrong and you have, care to elaborate?

There is so much wrong in what you say that I hardly know where to begin. First, pointing out some flaw in an artwork does not imply that you should be able to make a better artwork. Nathaniel Branden pointed out to Ayn Rand that one passage was just psychologically wrong, namely when Danneskjöld returns to the valley after a long absence. In the original version he went immediately to Galt and not to his wife; Branden told Rand that this was psychologically wrong - his first priority would have been seeing his wife. Rand accepted Branden's criticism and changed the text accordingly. Does that imply that NB would have done a better job writing AS? Of course not. That notion is just absurd. If a violinist plays out of tune, I can hear that very well, even if I don't play the violin at all. That you can see an error in the perspective in a Vermeer painting does not imply that you must be able to make a better painting to point out that error. Second, in this case we're not talking about a technical flaw in the novel, we're talking about an idea that is conveyed, and I say that I think this idea is perverse. Following your logic, we should never criticize ideas that are conveyed in a novel, unless we could write a better novel. Sorry, but that is complete bullshit.

She was an expert in philosophy, which pertains to aesthetics, which includes art. To the extent which her criticisms pertained to the philosophical nature of art, her criticisms would be valid, to the extent which they pertained to the functions or specifics of tools of the trade, they would not have been. Are you an expert in philosophy, and aesthetics of novelization?

She may have claimed to be an expert in aesthetics, but her statements about art and music show that she was completely out of her depth in that field.

There is a big difference between asserting that you don't like something, and why you do not, and proclaiming that something is fundamentally incorrect. You did the latter.

An enormous equivocation. When I use the word perverse, it does not mean "incorrect" in the sense that it is a technical flaw, I use it in the meaning that I think the idea that is conveyed is wicked and corrupt.

So now not only are you an expert novelist but also a mind reader, able to telepathically divine exactly what Rand meant. Are you seriously contending that Rand is saying it is OK to kill someone because they can't make up their mind in a difficult situation about an important topic in a short amount of time? Do you think Rand would advocate walking the streets with a gun, approaching strangers, and demanding they decide between being a platonist or an aristotlean with a justifiable punishment of death for the wrong answer, or no answer? Cmon now.

I don't have to telepathically divine what Rand meant. She was crystal clear in what she meant:

Calmly and impersonally she, who would have hesitated to fire at an animal, pulled the trigger and fired straight into the heart of a man who wanted to exist without the responsibility of consciousness.

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

[Laure]

You guys don't get it. The point is, the guard could have saved himself. All he had to do was decide to get out of the way. Rand made use of every scene that she could make use of, to get a point across. Her point here is, "Look, this guy won't even think, literally, to save his life!" Of course, in real life, it would have been unwise to allow the guard to choose to get out of the way, because he might have alerted his superiors. But, it's a novel. It was unwise also for Galt to tell his torturers how to fix the torture machine, but in that case, it was just irresistible, to Galt and to Rand, to have him do it!

[Alfonso Jones]

You guys don't get it. The point is, the guard could have saved himself. All he had to do was decide to get out of the way. Rand made use of every scene that she could make use of, to get a point across. Her point here is, "Look, this guy won't even think, literally, to save his life!" Of course, in real life, it would have been unwise to allow the guard to choose to get out of the way, because he might have alerted his superiors. But, it's a novel. It was unwise also for Galt to tell his torturers how to fix the torture machine, but in that case, it was just irresistible, to Galt and to Rand, to have him do it!

Good example of Galt providing instructions on how to fix the torture machine.

Alfonso

[bmacwilliam]

You guys don't get it. The point is, the guard could have saved himself. All he had to do was decide to get out of the way. Rand made use of every scene that she could make use of, to get a point across. Her point here is, "Look, this guy won't even think, literally, to save his life!" Of course, in real life, it would have been unwise to allow the guard to choose to get out of the way, because he might have alerted his superiors. But, it's a novel. It was unwise also for Galt to tell his torturers how to fix the torture machine, but in that case, it was just irresistible, to Galt and to Rand, to have him do it!

I think you've all missed it quite frankly. The guard - any guard, just by the fact he's is indeed a guard agrees to put himself in harm's way against threats. He's chosen a side. He is paid to play the odds game against the other side. Pretty simple, his number came up - end of story.

Bob

[BaalChatzaf]

[

I think you've all missed it quite frankly. The guard - any guard, just by the fact he's is indeed a guard agrees to put himself in harm's way against threats. He's chosen a side. He is paid to play the odds game against the other side. Pretty simple, his number came up - end of story.

Bob

Correct. And none of this nonsense about him not being able to choose. Besides, Rands accusation that the guard denied his consciousness. He was all two conscious of being between a rock and a hard place. If he let the rescuers in, he would have been punished by his mates. If he did not he would be shot by Dagny or one of the other rescuers. He was hard put to make up his mind, but he was aware that he was in a pickle.

In any case, the rule for a commando raid is to take out the sentries without making noise. Dagny nearly failed in that. Suppose the guard had shouted a warning? A proper commando, a role Dagny assumed when she took part in the rescue, will kill the sentry silently. That is how it is done.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You guys don't get it. The point is, the guard could have saved himself. All he had to do was decide to get out of the way. Rand made use of every scene that she could make use of, to get a point across. Her point here is, "Look, this guy won't even think, literally, to save his life!" Of course, in real life, it would have been unwise to allow the guard to choose to get out of the way, because he might have alerted his superiors. But, it's a novel. It was unwise also for Galt to tell his torturers how to fix the torture machine, but in that case, it was just irresistible, to Galt and to Rand, to have him do it!

Laure,

Sometimes the obvious is too hard to deal with for some people. It is obvious to me (and to the public in general) that Dagny is there to save her loved one. She would kill for him. I know I would kill for Kat if someone were torturing her or there was a serious risk of it.

People who like to bash Rand think that what was going on in Dagny's mind was something like the following (with malicious glee): "Ha haaaa! You don't want to think! Gotcha!!! So you don't want me to control your mind, eh?! Well I will show you what happens if you don't follow Objectivism! I will blast you from the face of the earth! I will allow only people who think like I do to remain alive! All the rest will die, die, die!!!"

Of course, what happened was that Dagny was simply saying to the guard, "My man is on the other side of that door running serious risk and nothing is going to keep me from him. If you do not get out of my way, I will have to shoot you. You will not keep me from him."

And Rand made the comment that the guard was not capable of making a decision in such a situation—not even to save his own life—because he had corrupted his values. He had no standards other than obey authority.

All anyone has to do is look to see this. But, of course, it is hard to bash Rand with that...

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

[....] Are you [DF] seriously contending that Rand is saying it is OK to kill someone because they can't make up their mind in a difficult situation about an important topic in a short amount of time? Do you think Rand would advocate walking the streets with a gun, approaching strangers, and demanding they decide between being a platonist or an aristotlean with a justifiable punishment of death for the wrong answer, or no answer? Cmon now.

I don't have to telepathically divine what Rand meant. She was crystal clear in what she meant:

Calmly and impersonally she, who would have hesitated to fire at an animal, pulled the trigger and fired straight into the heart of a man who wanted to exist without the responsibility of consciousness.

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

I don't agree with your reading of Rand's point. She isn't saying that the guard's desire "to exist without the responsibility of consciousness" is the reason why Dagny shot him. It's the reason why Dagny felt no compunction in shooting him. The reason why she shot him is because he was blocking her way. I don't take Rand to be saying that simply "by not being able to choose" "the man forfeited his right to live."

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Nathaniel Branden pointed out to Ayn Rand that one passage was just psychologically wrong, namely when Danneskjöld returns to the valley after a long absence. In the original version he went immediately to Galt and not to his wife; Branden told Rand that this was psychologically wrong - his first priority would have been seeing his wife. Rand accepted Branden's criticism and changed the text accordingly.

A further wrinkle to that incident: Originally the story had made sense, but originally Ragnar didn't have a wife. Kay Ludlow and Ragnar became hitched as a result of a prior suggestion of Barbara's, as a result of which Ragnar's immediately heading for Galt's upon his return looked, as NB said, "deuced odd." Thus a second change was needed to patch up after the first change... This is the way these alterations of detail can multiply. ;-)

Ellen

___

[Alfonso Jones]

Nathaniel Branden pointed out to Ayn Rand that one passage was just psychologically wrong, namely when Danneskjöld returns to the valley after a long absence. In the original version he went immediately to Galt and not to his wife; Branden told Rand that this was psychologically wrong - his first priority would have been seeing his wife. Rand accepted Branden's criticism and changed the text accordingly.

A further wrinkle to that incident: Originally the story had made sense, but originally Ragnar didn't have a wife. Kay Ludlow and Ragnar became hitched as a result of a prior suggestion of Barbara's, as a result of which Ragnar's immediately heading for Galt's upon his return looked, as NB said, "deuced odd." Thus a second change was needed to patch up after the first change... This is the way these alterations of detail can multiply. ;-)

Ellen

___

Thanks for this reminder.

Alfonso

[Brant Gaede]

[

I think you've all missed it quite frankly. The guard - any guard, just by the fact he's is indeed a guard agrees to put himself in harm's way against threats. He's chosen a side. He is paid to play the odds game against the other side. Pretty simple, his number came up - end of story.

Bob

Correct. And none of this nonsense about him not being able to choose. Besides, Rands accusation that the guard denied his consciousness. He was all two conscious of being between a rock and a hard place. If he let the rescuers in, he would have been punished by his mates. If he did not he would be shot by Dagny or one of the other rescuers. He was hard put to make up his mind, but he was aware that he was in a pickle.

In any case, the rule for a commando raid is to take out the sentries without making noise. Dagny nearly failed in that. Suppose the guard had shouted a warning? A proper commando, a role Dagny assumed when she took part in the rescue, will kill the sentry silently. That is how it is done.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob, I know all about that. So do you. But Rand didn't. She had her point to make and she did. It was real in the context of the novel, not real life. Like so much of Rand.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob, I know all about that. So do you. But Rand didn't. She had her point to make and she did. It was real in the context of the novel, not real life. Like so much of Rand.

--Brant

Brant,

I was never in the active (bloody and wet) military either (for health reasons, not lack of desire). But somehow I knew about the proper way of being a commando.

As to being in the context of the novel, that is really close to my point. Ayn Rand thought it was perfectly alright to kill someone for being unable to cope with very conflicting ideas, thoughts etc. The natural human response to a totally painful, unsolvable and unresolvable situation is the defensive blank-out. It is sort of like forming a blister (to make a physical analogy). If someone finds himself in that situation perhaps we can hope later he can gather his wits and think his way through. In any case, being between a rock and a hard place and not being able to cope with it (even temporarily) is surely not a death penalty offense. To a certain extent it is a form of blaming the victim.

In the context of the novel, the guard was delivered to his dilemma and impasse by his parents and teachers. He is a man who has been put in a situation where choosing evil is easier than choosing good. If one has to kill someone in that situation to preserve one's own value, then let it be done, but one need not smack his lips (in a manner of speaking) over the prospect. Rand has a streak of what I would characterize as gratuitous cruelty. Kill if one must, but don't torture or rejoice. I recognize this because I have the streak too, There are times when I give into the temptations of schadenfruede. Shame, shame, shame on me for doing that! I should know better. Well shame, shame, shame or Rand for the same reason.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Matus1976]

There is so much wrong in what you say that I hardly know where to begin. First, pointing out some flaw in an artwork does not imply that you should be able to make a better artwork. Nathaniel Branden pointed out to Ayn Rand that one passage was just psychologically wrong, namely when Danneskjöld returns to the valley after a long absence.

This point has been sufficiently dealt with, the answer being that Branden had made a suggestion to fix a logical implication Rand had missed from a different change, he was not making a philosophical correction. Anyway, you are not NB, he had a more of a legitimate claim to make constructive criticism, Rand invited him to read the work before it was completed and make suggestions. Who are you? Has Rand been communicating with you from beyond the grave to get so post mortum critiques?

If a violinist plays out of tune, I can hear that very well, even if I don't play the violin at all. That you can see an error in the perspective in a Vermeer painting does not imply that you must be able to make a better painting to point out that error. Second, in this case we're not talking about a technical flaw in the novel, we're talking about an idea that is conveyed, and I say that I think this idea is perverse. Following your logic, we should never criticize ideas that are conveyed in a novel, unless we could write a better novel. Sorry, but that is complete bullshit.

You ought to identify the nature of the types of criticisms possible. e.g. Technical, philosophical, aesthetic, etc. An out of tune violin is hardly the same things as a corrupt philosophical point in a philosophical novel which apparently only you are clever enought o discern, and it is certainly not the same thing as you asserting that the violinist / composer ought to have composed and played his piece of music this way or that.

You should not be criticizing things that pertain to the nature of fundamentals of novel writing if you have not written a novel, such as the concretization of abstracts. If you are a painter and I am not, should I tell you what color paint you should have used and where? If you are an engineer, and I am a user of your product, should I tell you what metal you should have used? If you are a novelist, and I am a reader, should I tell you how you ought to have written your book?

Following your logic, anyone can criticize any thing for any reason, THAT is complete bullshit.

You tell me, are all criticisms from anyone on anything legitimate, or ought criticisms to be of value come from people experienced in what they are criticizing, that is, are there criteria by which the validity of criticisms should be judged. Perhaps you can share your criteria with us.

She was an expert in philosophy, which pertains to aesthetics, which includes art. To the extent which her criticisms pertained to the philosophical nature of art, her criticisms would be valid, to the extent which they pertained to the functions or specifics of tools of the trade, they would not have been. Are you an expert in philosophy, and aesthetics of novelization?

She may have claimed to be an expert in aesthetics, but her statements about art and music show that she was completely out of her depth in that field.

Such is your opinion, in a world of crappy abstract art, no doubt such a claim was often made, but is originated in the philosophical difference between what is considered art by people of different philosophical inclinations.

There is a big difference between asserting that you don't like something, and why you do not, and proclaiming that something is fundamentally incorrect. You did the latter.

An enormous equivocation. When I use the word perverse, it does not mean "incorrect" in the sense that it is a technical flaw, I use it in the meaning that I think the idea that is conveyed is wicked and corrupt.

This is because your interpretation of the scene, that is, elevating this one particular sentance to the key essence of the whole scene, leads you to think Rand is saying it is OK to kill someone for hesistating to make a difficult decision, is not reasonable. As I asked you all ready, are you seriously asserting that Rand would be OK with someone going around and asking someone an important philosophical question and then killing them because they delayed in answering? You are ignoring the context of the scene, like saying that Cheryl Taggarts broken shoe was the reason she killed herself.

I don't have to telepathically divine what Rand meant. She was crystal clear in what she meant:

Calmly and impersonally she, who would have hesitated to fire at an animal, pulled the trigger and fired straight into the heart of a man who wanted to exist without the responsibility of consciousness.

What is obvious (and what is also made very clear in the whole preceding dialogue) is that by not being able to choose the man forfeited his right to live, he is less than an animal,

What is "obvious"? Your "obvious" interpretation is narrow minded and retarded.

She is conveying a philosophical and moral message in this passage and she couldn't have been more explicit ("he wanted to exist without the responsibility of consciousness").

Again, you ignore the context of the scene, Dagny did not walk up to a random person and insist on going through a door he happened to stand in front of, then killed him for not moving aside and not answering her inquiry fast enough. If she did, and killed the man, your 'obvious' 'interprtation' would be more reasonable. The man guarded a door which held Dagny's lover who was being tortured to death. When the question is one of life and death, and where human rights are being violated, attempting to deny the responsibility of concioussness is not a free waiver to absolve you of the consequences of your actions. The people in the Taggart Tunnel did not deserve to die because they happened to have thought one thing or said another, Rand was not advocating that we go out and bomb and crush socialists in train tunnels, that interpretation is as 'obvious' and moronic as yours is here, the scene was to illustrate, just as in this scene, that to evade the responsibility of conscioussness does not free you from suffering the logical consequences from that evasion.

[Chris Grieb]

Matus; Well said. I don't think Bob will get it.

[Dragonfly]

This point has been sufficiently dealt with, the answer being that Branden had made a suggestion to fix a logical implication Rand had missed from a different change, he was not making a philosophical correction.

What is this for crap? Where did I make a "philosophical correction"? That presupposes that there is a "correct" philosophy, which is nonsense. I only pointed out that I found a certain passage revolting by its implication. That is not a correction, it is just giving my opinion. Rand is free to give a disgusting example and I am free to say that I find it disgusting. Is that really so difficult to understand?

Anyway, you are not NB, he had a more of a legitimate claim to make constructive criticism, Rand invited him to read the work before it was completed and make suggestions. Who are you? Has Rand been communicating with you from beyond the grave to get so post mortum critiques?

I've seldom heard such nonsense. Why shouldn't we be allowed to criticize works of authors, dead or alive? That is completely crazy. Is this an Objectivist viewpoint?

You ought to identify the nature of the types of criticisms possible. e.g. Technical, philosophical, aesthetic, etc. An out of tune violin is hardly the same things as a corrupt philosophical point in a philosophical novel which apparently only you are clever enought o discern, and it is certainly not the same thing as you asserting that the violinist / composer ought to have composed and played his piece of music this way or that.

You conveniently ignore my second example: that you can see an error in the perspective in a Vermeer painting does not imply that you must be able to make a better painting to point out that error. In terms of a novel that might for example be pointing out an inconsistency in the story.

You should not be criticizing things that pertain to the nature of fundamentals of novel writing if you have not written a novel, such as the concretization of abstracts. If you are a painter and I am not, should I tell you what color paint you should have used and where?

Wrong example, as it is not relevant. You might very well tell me that you find the color of some part in the painting ugly or wrong. Perhaps I might even learn something from it, perhaps I think it's nonsense, what does it matter?

If you are an engineer, and I am a user of your product, should I tell you what metal you should have used?

Again the wrong example. If you are the user of my product you might very well tell me if there is something in it that doesn't function well, or is clumsy or ugly. That is not the same as telling me how I should solve the problems technically.

If you are a novelist, and I am a reader, should I tell you how you ought to have written your book?

Again the wrong example. You might very well tell me that there is an inconsistency, or that some passage is too long or unclear, or that the dialogue is stilted. That is not the same as telling me how I should rewrite the book to make it better. Perhaps one day you'll understand it, though I do have my doubts.

Following your logic, anyone can criticize any thing for any reason, THAT is complete bullshit.

Of course anyone can criticize any thing for any reason, at least as long as we aren't yet living in an Objectivist dictatorship. Some criticisms may be valid, others not. So what?

You tell me, are all criticisms from anyone on anything legitimate, or ought criticisms to be of value come from people experienced in what they are criticizing, that is, are there criteria by which the validity of criticisms should be judged. Perhaps you can share your criteria with us.

It depends on the kind of criticism. Technical criticisms may be judged by the technical standards that are commonly used, for example correct perspective in realistic paintings, or consistency in a realistic novel. Aesthetic criticisms are necessarily subjective and cannot be validated, which doesn't mean that such criticisms may not be informative and useful for other people.

Such is your opinion, in a world of crappy abstract art, no doubt such a claim was often made, but is originated in the philosophical difference between what is considered art by people of different philosophical inclinations.

So you think that all abstract art is crappy?

This is because your interpretation of the scene, that is, elevating this one particular sentance to the key essence of the whole scene, leads you to think Rand is saying it is OK to kill someone for hesistating to make a difficult decision, is not reasonable. As I asked you all ready, are you seriously asserting that Rand would be OK with someone going around and asking someone an important philosophical question and then killing them because they delayed in answering? You are ignoring the context of the scene, like saying that Cheryl Taggarts broken shoe was the reason she killed herself.

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

What is "obvious"? Your "obvious" interpretation is narrow minded and retarded.

It is equally obvious that you are narrow minded and retarded.

Edited December 20, 2007 by Dragonfly

[Selene]

This point has been sufficiently dealt with, the answer being that Branden had made a suggestion to fix a logical implication Rand had missed from a different change, he was not making a philosophical correction.

What is this for crap? Where did I make a "philosophical correction"? That presupposes that there is a "correct" philosophy, which is nonsense. I only pointed out that I found a certain passage revolting by its implication. That is not a correction, it is just giving my opinion. Rand is free to give a disgusting example and I am free to say that I find it disgusting. Is that really so difficult to understand?

Anyway, you are not NB, he had a more of a legitimate claim to make constructive criticism, Rand invited him to read the work before it was completed and make suggestions. Who are you? Has Rand been communicating with you from beyond the grave to get so post mortum critiques?

I selden heard such nonsense. Why shouldn't we be allowed to criticize works of authors, dead or alive? That is completely crazy. Is this an Objectivist viewpoint?

You ought to identify the nature of the types of criticisms possible. e.g. Technical, philosophical, aesthetic, etc. An out of tune violin is hardly the same things as a corrupt philosophical point in a philosophical novel which apparently only you are clever enought o discern, and it is certainly not the same thing as you asserting that the violinist / composer ought to have composed and played his piece of music this way or that.

You conveniently ignore my second example: that you can see an error in the perspective in a Vermeer painting does not imply that you must be able to make a better painting to point out that error. In terms of a novel that might for example be pointing out an inconsistency in the story.

You should not be criticizing things that pertain to the nature of fundamentals of novel writing if you have not written a novel, such as the concretization of abstracts. If you are a painter and I am not, should I tell you what color paint you should have used and where?

Wrong example, as it is not relevant. You might very well tell me that you find the color of some part in the painting ugly or wrong. Perhaps I might even learn something from it, perhaps I think it's nonsense, what does it matter?

If you are an engineer, and I am a user of your product, should I tell you what metal you should have used?

Again the wrong example. If you are the user of my product you might very well tell me if there is something in it that doesn't function well, or is clumsy or ugly. That is not the same as telling me how I should solve the problems technically.

If you are a novelist, and I am a reader, should I tell you how you ought to have written your book?

Again the wrong example. You might very well tell me that there is an inconsistency, or that some passage is too long or unclear, or that the dialogue is stilted. That is not the same as telling me how I should rewrite the book to make it better. Perhaps one day you'll understand it, though I do have my doubts.

Following your logic, anyone can criticize any thing for any reason, THAT is complete bullshit.

Of course anyone can criticize any thing for any reason, at least as long as we aren't yet living in an Objectivist dictatorship. Some criticisms may be valid, others not. So what?

You tell me, are all criticisms from anyone on anything legitimate, or ought criticisms to be of value come from people experienced in what they are criticizing, that is, are there criteria by which the validity of criticisms should be judged. Perhaps you can share your criteria with us.

It depends on the kind of criticism. Technical criticisms may be judged by the technical standards that are commonly used, for example correct perspective in realistic paintings, or consistency in a realistic novel. Aesthetic criticisms are necessarily subjective and cannot be validated, which doesn't mean that such criticisms may not be informative and useful for other people.

Such is your opinion, in a world of crappy abstract art, no doubt such a claim was often made, but is originated in the philosophical difference between what is considered art by people of different philosophical inclinations.

So you think that all abstract art is crappy?

This is because your interpretation of the scene, that is, elevating this one particular sentance to the key essence of the whole scene, leads you to think Rand is saying it is OK to kill someone for hesistating to make a difficult decision, is not reasonable. As I asked you all ready, are you seriously asserting that Rand would be OK with someone going around and asking someone an important philosophical question and then killing them because they delayed in answering? You are ignoring the context of the scene, like saying that Cheryl Taggarts broken shoe was the reason she killed herself.

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

What is "obvious"? Your "obvious" interpretation is narrow minded and retarded.

It is equally obvious that you are narrow minded and retarded.

Thus Spoke Dragonflythustra:

"Further it's rather presumptuous to call people of whom you know little or nothing "dwarfs" if you yourself can't spell even the simplest words: homile, complainents, atempts, ellevate. Where did you get your education?" [From Post #27 this thread]

I hold your mirror to you - "Who are you? Has Rand been communicating with you from beyond the grave to get so post mortum critiques?"

"I selden heard such nonsense. Why shouldn't we be allowed to criticize works of authors, dead or alive? That is completely crazy. Is this an Objectivist viewpoint?"

Yes and the mirror shows that "seldom" and "post mortem" are the correct spellings. I unlike you am comfortable with typos and occassional spelling or grammar errors, especially in this medium.

And you went to what university at what age? Mirror, mirror on the wall ...Don't worry I do not expect an apology. Ad hominem attacks seem to fit your wingspan Dragonfly.

[Dragonfly]

You cannot read, wise guy. It wasn't me who wrote "post mortum", that was written by your Objectivist friend. I know my Latin. Please pay more attention next time. I'll plead guilty to "selden". I could make the excuse that English is not my native language, but it was in fact a typo, probably unconsciously caused by the resemblance with the Dutch word "zelden" = "seldom". BTW, it is not "occassional" but "occasional". And you don't understand what "ad hominem" means.

[Matus1976]

This point has been sufficiently dealt with, the answer being that Branden had made a suggestion to fix a logical implication Rand had missed from a different change, he was not making a philosophical correction.

What is this for crap? Where did I make a "philosophical correction"? That presupposes that there is a "correct" philosophy, which is nonsense. I only pointed out that I found a certain passage revolting by its implication. That is not a correction, it is just giving my opinion. Rand is free to give a disgusting example and I am free to say that I find it disgusting. Is that really so difficult to understand?

That is not correct, you said it was WRONG, not that you merely didnt like it. Are you officially changing your position to merely one of revulsion now? Thats great, but what makes you think anyone on a forum cares what you find disgusting without delving into a relating philosophical discussion. Go post some comments on youtube if thats what you are looking for.

Also, fundamental to an implication is an inferrence, in this case, I am arguing that you have inferred what was not implied. As evidenced through the rest of this post, you think Rand is implying that it's ok to kill people you find worthless. This is a childish and extremely superficial knee jerk reaction to a few out of context quotes combined with your sad attempt at telepathic divinity.

No one else interprets this passage in that manner, Rand is not here to defend herself against your time wasting accusations, so we are left with our knowledge and judgement to decide if Rand is actually advocating killing people you find worthless in this scene, or criticizing the evasion of reality. You are doing a piss poor job defending your interpretation, I suspect this is because it was in fact a superficial knee jerk reaction which came from you taking this quote out of context, and now you are attempting to 'save face' by continuing to argue something so utterly rediculous.

Anyway, you are not NB, he had a more of a legitimate claim to make constructive criticism, Rand invited him to read the work before it was completed and make suggestions. Who are you? Has Rand been communicating with you from beyond the grave to get so post mortum critiques?

I selden heard such nonsense. Why shouldn't we be allowed to criticize works of authors, dead or alive? That is completely crazy. Is this an Objectivist viewpoint?

You love to drop context. I am not talking about 'allowing' someone to criticize something, I am talking about what kinds of criticisms we should consider and find legitimate. Silly superficial ones based on unjustified emotional reaction and an utter lack of understanding on the topic? Or reasoned and thoughtfull ones based on good knowledge of a topic?

Again, what is your point of pointing out your disgust of this scene, either you are 1) trying to understand if your interpretation is justified 2) trying to argue to everyone here on a forum of admirers of Rands work that she was a callous murderer and advocated killing people who one might find worthless.

Your behavior does not seem to suggest that 1) is the answer, and if you are here to talk us into Rand hating, you are nothing more than a troll.

You ought to identify the nature of the types of criticisms possible. e.g. Technical, philosophical, aesthetic, etc. An out of tune violin is hardly the same things as a corrupt philosophical point in a philosophical novel which apparently only you are clever enought o discern, and it is certainly not the same thing as you asserting that the violinist / composer ought to have composed and played his piece of music this way or that.

You conveniently ignore my second example: that you can see an error in the perspective in a Vermeer painting does not imply that you must be able to make a better painting to point out that error. In terms of a novel that might for example be pointing out an inconsistency in the story.

I was not conveniently ignoring anything, I acknowledged there is a wide range of types of criticisms, I am asking YOU to elaborate to us which ones are or are not valid. Since you have established your inability to keep context and intrinsic desire to paint Rand as a callous advocate of murder, in addition to your lack of expertise with aesthetics, novelization, or philosophy, your criticisms of this scene are worthless.

You should not be criticizing things that pertain to the nature of fundamentals of novel writing if you have not written a novel, such as the concretization of abstracts. If you are a painter and I am not, should I tell you what color paint you should have used and where?

Wrong example, as it is not relevant. You might very well tell me that you find the color of some part in the painting ugly or wrong. Perhaps I might even learn something from it, perhaps I think it's nonsense, what does it matter?

Looking at a painting and saying "I think that is ugly" is a lot different than saying "I think that is WRONG" here you wantonly mix an aesthetic preference and an objective proclimation. Which is it, is the passage WRONG, or is it UGLY. If you are arguing the former, then we have the case or a philosophical discussion, both of Rand's philosophy and novelization, and what makes criticisms legitimate. If you argue the latter, then the conversation can end, since, who really cares if you think it's ugly?

If you are a novelist, and I am a reader, should I tell you how you ought to have written your book?

Again the wrong example. You might very well tell me that there is an inconsistency, or that some passage is too long or unclear, or that the dialogue is stilted. That is not the same as telling me how I should rewrite the book to make it better. Perhaps one day you'll understand it, though I do have my doubts.

Your assessment of the claim this this passage is UGLY, assuming that is what you originally meant, is coming from your INTERPRETATION of the passage. You claim absolute knowledge as to what Rand meant, yet Rand's own life, writings, and behavior never even remotely suggest this callous murderous attitude that apparently only you are clever enough to ascertain. Yet you patehticaly try to back up by quoting the attitude of an antogonist who embraces this attitude in another one of her books. So apparently every statement ever written, even by the enemies in a book, is automatically a direct representation of exactly what the author thinks? That seems to be the limit of your abilities at interpretation.

Following your logic, anyone can criticize any thing for any reason, THAT is complete bullshit.

Of course anyone can criticize any thing for any reason, at least as long as we aren't yet living in an Objectivist dictatorship. Some criticisms may be valid, others not. So what?

Same context dropping here, you act as though I am implying a governing body on legitimate criticisms, instead of what the nature of a justified criticism that the author of a piece of work might find valuable is and what kind of criticisms a rational person would feel compelled to make. Of course anyone can go through the motions of a criticism, they can write it, say it, speak it, who cares? But an honest person will ask himself both whether he was experienced enough to make such a criticism, and whether such a criticism is of any worth to the author or the ideas being elaborated.

You tell me, are all criticisms from anyone on anything legitimate, or ought criticisms to be of value come from people experienced in what they are criticizing, that is, are there criteria by which the validity of criticisms should be judged. Perhaps you can share your criteria with us.

It depends on the kind of criticism. Technical criticisms may be judged by the technical standards that are commonly used, for example correct perspective in realistic paintings, or consistency in a realistic novel. Aesthetic criticisms are necessarily subjective and cannot be validated, which doesn't mean that such criticisms may not be informative and useful for other people.

Ah ha! So was your criticism aesthetic - NO since you are implying Rand is an advocate of murdering worthless people. Was it Technical? NO since you are not talking about sentance lengths or grammatical constructions. What IS the NATURE of your criticism then? It is an attack on the concretization of an abstract ideal that Rand is writing of. It is a philosophical criticism. You think the concretization is WRONG (perverse) and the implication from it is murderous. Your now demonstrated habit of context dropping and rediculous interpretation abilities, never mind the fact that you present absolutely no evidence of this murderous hidden attitude of Rand outside of this one particular sentance which only you seem to interpret that way, illustrates pretty clearly to me that you lack the knowledge to make this criticism, as either a philosophical one or technical one, of any worth.

Such is your opinion, in a world of crappy abstract art, no doubt such a claim was often made, but is originated in the philosophical difference between what is considered art by people of different philosophical inclinations.

So you think that all abstract art is crappy?

This is not relevant to this discussion. You were attempting to diminish her expetise in an error by citing criticisms from people who by their nature despise objective critiques.

The excuse of rescuing Galt is very thin, as she takes all the time to babble with the guard, who was obviously so confused and incompetent that he could very easily have been overpowered.

The 'excuse' of resucing Galt is THIN? So you are saying the point of having Galt kidnappened, tortured, and having a massive rescue effort launched was JUST to give Rand one more little sneaking chance to hint at her alleged murderous callousness only discernable by immensely clever diviners of absolute knowledge yapping on a forum 50 years later. Yeah, which explanation is the more likely, you are bad at interpration and have an idealogical bent your are trying to justify or are hiding your initial poor interpretation skills, or only you of all people was actually clever enough to know Rands true message. Next thing you know, you'll be telling use to play it backwards, or pick every 13th letter to find her 'true message'

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

As "she wrote" yet, who said this? Was it one of the communist antogonists acknowledging the foundation of their attitudes? Was it a protagonist identifying the nature of murderous collectivism in a sarcastic projection? OR was it a hidden message for some clever guy decades later to discern the true murderous callousness of Rand. Whatever.

What is "obvious"? Your "obvious" interpretation is narrow minded and retarded.

It is equally obvious that you are narrow minded and retarded.

I have now presented sufficient evidence demonstrating why you interpretation is neither 'obvious' thoughtfull, nor intelligent. Thus it is narrow minded and retarted. Note I was also attacking your INTERPRETATION and not YOU, yet you, demonstrating further your childishness, attacked ME as narrow minded and retarded, without, of course, backing this up with any evidence, and acting as though merely stating it automatically makes it true. If this is the concept of proof and reasoned argument you embrace, I see no point in further discussions with you.

[Matus1976]

You cannot read, wise guy. It wasn't me who wrote "post mortum", that was written by your Objectivist friend. I know my Latin. Please pay more attention next time. I'll plead guilty to "selden". I could make the excuse that English is not my native language, but it was in fact a typo, probably unconsciously caused by the resemblance with the Dutch word "zelden" = "seldom". BTW, it is not "occassional" but "occasional". And you don't understand what "ad hominem" means.

What is this, argumentum ad spelling? Words are the means by which we convey ideas to one another, as such, their primary usefulness is in the conveyance of those ideas, not yapping about minor mistakes in the particular and specific arbitrary conventions derived from the influence of dozens of languages throughout history.

Focus on the ideas, not the words used to convey them.

Edited December 19, 2007 by Matus1976

[Dragonfly]

That is not correct, you said it was WRONG, not that you merely didnt like it.

No, you are lying, I nowhere said that is was wrong. Don't put words into my mouth that I never said, that is dishonest. I said it was perverse. In a later post I explained that my meaning corresponded to the third meaning in the dictionary definition of perverse that you quoted, namely "wicked, corrupt". Apparently you're now trying to suggest that I meant a different meaning of the word, which is the fallacy of equivocation. Who's always talking about mind-reading? I think my meaning was clear enough to any honest reader. Your attempts to misrepresent what I said are pathetic.

Are you officially changing your position to merely one of revulsion now? Thats great, but what makes you think anyone on a forum cares what you find disgusting without delving into a relating philosophical discussion. Go post some comments on youtube if thats what you are looking for.

Of course there isn't any change of position, that exists only in your imagination. And do you think that anyone on this forum cares what you think how it should be run? In the past you've also been poisoning the atmosphere here with your nasty posts, so you're hardly in a position to criticize others.

As "she wrote" yet, who said this? Was it one of the communist antogonists acknowledging the foundation of their attitudes? Was it a protagonist identifying the nature of murderous collectivism in a sarcastic projection? OR was it a hidden message for some clever guy decades later to discern the true murderous callousness of Rand. Whatever.

Gosh, you're an Objectivist and you don't even know who said it and in what context?

I have now presented sufficient evidence demonstrating why you interpretation is neither 'obvious' thoughtfull, nor intelligent. Thus it is narrow minded and retarted. Note I was also attacking your INTERPRETATION and not YOU, yet you, demonstrating further your childishness, attacked ME as narrow minded and retarded, without, of course, backing this up with any evidence, and acting as though merely stating it automatically makes it true. If this is the concept of proof and reasoned argument you embrace, I see no point in further discussions with you.

I don't fall for that legalistic trick. An argument can be bad, wrong, or nonsense, but if you say that it is "narrow-minded" and "retarded", you're using words that refer to the person and not to the argument. This is a dishonest tactic. You see, two can play that game.

[Ellen Stuttle]

As I wrote earlier: I wouldn't have any problem if Dagny had killed a dozen guards in a shoot-out to rescue Galt if that had been unavoidable (as might have happened in a real situation); that would have been a war-like situation, it's them or us. But in the book the rescue of Galt is only used as an excuse to show that someone who cannot choose is not worth to live, she might hesitate to kill an animal, but she doesn't hesitate such an Untermensch. The excuse of rescuing Galt is very thin, as she takes all the time to babble with the guard, who was obviously so confused and incompetent that he could very easily have been overpowered. [....]

With that way of putting it, I agree. (I left out two sentences from the quoted paragraph; see below.) It isn't that Dagny shoots the guard because of his unwillingness to decide (she shoots him because he's blocking her way and won't move aside); it's that the author includes the scene and writes it the way she does in order to illustrate Dagny's lack of compunction in shooting the guard.

Similarly, with the Winston Tunnel scene, it's the author's appearance of schadenfreude which I dislike in the scene.

Likewise, that's part of what I disliked from my first reading in the discussion of "the soul of the mystic" in the speech. (I also objected because of the gross unfair inaccuracy as a blanket portrayal, and because of the evidential problem -- just how would anyone know what Galt is claiming to know about the psychological process ("A mystic is a person who...")? And in regard to the details of the speech, "literary device" can't be stretched to cover the circumstances because Rand later quoted the speech in full as a separate piece with the caption: This is the philosophy of Objectivism.. Thus she was saying she indeed did stand by the portrayal and analysis, as literally correct.)

Here are the two sentences I left out from the quoted paragraph:

But no, such Untermenschen should be exterminated. As she wrote in We the Living: "What are your masses but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?". She really did mean it.

I don't think Rand is saying such Untermenschen should be exterminated. But I think (a) there were a lot of humanity's specimens whom she did consider -- in DF's usage -- "Untermenschen." See, e.g., a sentiment expressed by Wynand in The Fountainhead. I don't have the exact quote to hand but it's something like "to be a lover of mankind, one must despise most of its representatives"; and (b ) she exhibited no pity or even compassion for those she considered "Untermenschen" and no qualm at the thought of their being destroyed.

Ellen

___

Edited December 19, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[Brant Gaede]

Without commenting on all the sword fighting above, Dagny's shooting the guard wasn't perverse or disgusting, at least not to me. It fit the context of the novel where people gab a lot. The world of AS is a lot less perverse and disgusting than the one we actually live in. The implicit assumption that Dragonfly seems to be making is that the conversation between Dagny and the guard was the primary context and they should next sit down and have a cup of tea. The primary context was Galt needing rescue and the guard in the way. The scene is artificial and so is the novel generally. One can literalize any number of scenes out of the novel and find them perverse, stupid, funny, disgusting, etc. That's why "The New Yorker" review of AS once had me in stitches. I do think Rand should have had the guard suddenly go for his gun in the middle of the gab fest, conventional as that would have been. And also in defense of AR, the communists destroyed her family's lives and fortunes and the guard was one of their spiritual representatives. Regardless of everything, Dagny had to pull that trigger. Once I had to pull a trigger too, in just such a cold-blooded way with the same result. Interestingly, there was also a conversation, but it wasn't with me. Analogously it would have been Francisco suddenly appearing at Dagny's side and killing the guard when the guard suddenly made himself a threat to Dagny as opposed just to blocking her way.

--Brant

[Matus1976]

That is not correct, you said it was WRONG, not that you merely didnt like it.

No, you are lying, I nowhere said that is was wrong. Don't put words into my mouth that I never said, that is dishonest. I said it was perverse. In a later post I explained that my meaning corresponded to the third meaning in the dictionary definition of perverse that you quoted, namely "wicked, corrupt". Apparently you're now trying to suggest that I meant a different meaning of the word, which is the fallacy of equivocation. Who's always talking about mind-reading? I think my meaning was clear enough to any honest reader. Your attempts to misrepresent what I said are pathetic.

Perverse means wrong, as does 'corrupt' while 'wicked' means evil. So either you are saying her concretization of a philosophical point is wrong, or what she is advocating is Evil. Which is what I said in the previous post. Neither 'wicked' 'corrupt' or 'wrong' is the same things as 'ugly' Please explicitly state your position. Is it wrong, evil, ugly, wicked, corrupt, what? Clearly since you keep insisting that these are hints to her hidden murderous callousness that only you were clever enough to discover, you think it is wicked in the evil sense. As I said, this is based on your flawed interpretation of the scene, and there is no evidence to suggest this is actually what Rand meant, thought, or felt. Yet you still insist it is so, people who insist things despite any evidence to back them up are nothing more than religious zealots. Your meaning is clear, you think Rand advocated wanton and senseless murder, and this silly little passage and diatribe is evidence of it. As I said, this is utterly rediculous.

Are you officially changing your position to merely one of revulsion now? Thats great, but what makes you think anyone on a forum cares what you find disgusting without delving into a relating philosophical discussion. Go post some comments on youtube if thats what you are looking for.

Of course there isn't any change of position, that exists only in your imagination. And do you think that anyone on this forum cares what you think how it should be run? In the past you've also been poisoning the atmosphere here with your nasty posts, so you're hardly in a position to criticize others.

Why do you drop the key points? If you skip points, does that mean you concede them?

Again, what is your point of pointing out your disgust of this scene, either you are 1) trying to understand if your interpretation is justified 2) trying to argue to everyone here on a forum of admirers of Rands work that she was a callous murderer and advocated killing people who one might find worthless.

Your behavior does not seem to suggest that 1) is the answer, and if you are here to talk us into Rand hating, you are nothing more than a troll.

I never suggested how this forum ought to be run, and take issue with your claim that my posts are 'nasty' MSK, do you feel I 'poison the atmosphere' here on OL? Any 3rd parties care to comment?

Never mind that these are both red herrings and you are simply trying to obfuscate the fact that you have no good answer to the charge of your interpretation without any evidence (interpretations of this type tell us more about the interpretater than that which they are trying to understand)

Please elaborate to us which kinds of criticisms are or are not valid. Since you have established your inability to keep context and intrinsic desire to paint Rand as a callous advocate of murder, in addition to your lack of expertise with aesthetics, novelization, or philosophy, your criticisms of this scene are worthless.

As "she wrote" yet, who said this? Was it one of the communist antogonists acknowledging the foundation of their attitudes? Was it a protagonist identifying the nature of murderous collectivism in a sarcastic projection? OR was it a hidden message for some clever guy decades later to discern the true murderous callousness of Rand. Whatever.

Gosh, you're an Objectivist and you don't even know who said it and in what context?

Gosh, is this the level of intellectual discourse we can expect from you? What are you, 12 years old? I have not claimed to be an Objectivist, nor would I agree that to be one, one must memorize "We The Living" Are you suggesting that is the criteria to claim oneself an "objectivist" ?

And again you skip the point, that you seem to think you are some tremendously clever fella who discovered the true key and proof of Rands murderous callousness. Are you or are you not that person? Do you think this is, or is not, evidence of Rands advocation of murdering people who she deemed 'worthless' answer yes or no, stop obfuscating with irrellevant comments and stand behind your beliefs or change them.

I have now presented sufficient evidence demonstrating why you interpretation is neither 'obvious' thoughtfull, nor intelligent. Thus it is narrow minded and retarted. Note I was also attacking your INTERPRETATION and not YOU, yet you, demonstrating further your childishness, attacked ME as narrow minded and retarded, without, of course, backing this up with any evidence, and acting as though merely stating it automatically makes it true. If this is the concept of proof and reasoned argument you embrace, I see no point in further discussions with you.

I don't fall for that legalistic trick. An argument can be bad, wrong, or nonsense, but if you say that it is "narrow-minded" and

"retarded", you're using words that refer to the person and not to the argument. This is a dishonest tactic. You see, two can play that game.

Your argument is bad, wrong, nonsensical, and narrow minded, why could you also not interpret that to mean you are bad, wrong, or nonsensical? Why do those only pertain to 'arguments' while 'narrow minded' (which explicitly identifies a perspective in which something is judged) pertains to you, and not only the argument. Please list what quality judgements pertain only to the argument and which pertain to argument and arguer, and which pertain only to arguer, so I might be able to have a meanignful disucssion without you devolving into immature name calling (yes, that is you, immature, not your argument) You merely interpret my comment of your argument into one that pertains to you in general, but I should hope you realize by now how limited your abilities of interpretation are.

Your ARGUMENT was narrow minded, I don't know anything about you, except for this argument, so YOU, in relation only to the context of this discussion, are narrow minded (I know you have problems with keeping context) but unlike you, I do not make it a habit of passing sweeping judgements over the entirety of one's life and mind, only that which I have direct experience with. So this is not saying that YOU as a WHOLE are narrow minded. Yet you insist that I, as a whole, am retarded and narrow minded, when you CAN NOT CITE ANY EVIDENCE that suggests I am either of those EVEN WITHIN the narrow context of this discussion.

Another point you skipped

So was your criticism aesthetic - NO since you are implying Rand is an advocate of murdering worthless people. Was it Technical? NO since you are not talking about sentance lengths or grammatical constructions. What IS the NATURE of your criticism then? It is an attack on the concretization of an abstract ideal that Rand is writing of. It is a philosophical criticism. You think the concretization is WRONG (perverse) and the implication from it is murderous. Your now demonstrated habit of context dropping and rediculous interpretation abilities, never mind the fact that you present absolutely no evidence of this murderous hidden attitude of Rand outside of this one particular sentance which only you seem to interpret that way, illustrates pretty clearly to me that you lack the knowledge to make this criticism, as either a philosophical one or technical one, of any worth.

And another

The 'excuse' of rescuing Galt is THIN? So you are saying the point of having Galt kidnappened, tortured, and having a massive rescue effort launched was JUST to give Rand one more little sneaking chance to hint at her alleged murderous callousness only discernable by immensely clever diviners of absolute knowledge yapping on a forum 50 years later. Yeah, which explanation is the more likely, you are bad at interpration and have an idealogical bent your are trying to justify or are hiding your initial poor interpretation skills, or only you of all people was actually clever enough to know Rands true message. Next thing you know, you'll be telling use to play it backwards, or pick every 13th letter to find her 'true message'

[Dragonfly]

I'm not conceding anything, but I'm not interested in prolonging a discussion with someone who is twisting my words, putting words into my mouth that I never said and who thinks that using invective is OK. I'm ready to discuss any point in detail with a civilized person, but you don't belong in that category.

[Ellen Stuttle]

An addendum to my comments from post #71 about the "soul of the mystic" segment of Galt's Speech.

I wrote:

Likewise, [the schadenfreude quality is] part of what I disliked from my first reading in the discussion of "the soul of the mystic" in the speech. (I also objected because of the gross unfair inaccuracy as a blanket portrayal, and because of the evidential problem -- just how would anyone know what Galt is claiming to know about the psychological process ("A mystic is a person who...")? And in regard to the details of the speech, "literary device" can't be stretched to cover the circumstances because Rand later quoted the speech in full as a separate piece with the caption: This is the philosophy of Objectivism.. Thus she was saying she indeed did stand by the portrayal and analysis, as literally correct.)

A further aspect of my distaste for that segment is because I don't think it's a good advertisement for a purported philosophy of reason to present a wholesale denunciation and psychological analysis for which there couldn't possibly be proper evidential support. "Reason" doesn't proceed in such vein.

Ellen

___