Dagny and the Guard

[Ellen Stuttle]

My philosophy is "tit for tat", not "the other cheek". If someone insults me, I pay the compliment back.

Mine isn't either of those.

Ellen

___

[Brant Gaede]

My philosophy is "tit for tat", not "the other cheek". If someone insults me, I pay the compliment back.

__

That's why you'll never win--you're continuously engaged.

--Brant

Edited December 22, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

F___ the guard.

--Brant

Edited December 22, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Ellen Stuttle]

... to evade the responsibility of conscioussness does not free you from suffering the logical consequences from that evasion.

Or as I said much less formally, "Look, he won't even think, literally, to save his life."

We have explained our interpretation of the scene, and I think we "get it". Others are never going to "get it", and I think it's because they have more empathy for the guard than we do. I understand your frustration, Matus1976. We could also point out that if Rand meant to convey that it was OK to kill people who can't make up their minds, she could have made that point better in Akston's Diner. Dagny's sitting there eating a burger. A woman next to her at the counter: "Gosh, vanilla or chocolate? I just can't decide!" Dagny: *blam*

lol, indeed. Dragonfly is rediculously arguing that the whole reason Galt was kidnapped, held hostage, and tortured, was so Rand could sneak in this idea that it is Ok to kill someone because they 'can't decide' Of course, asking one's self what exactly the guard couldnt decide in that scene reveals much more of the essence that Rand was trying to convey.

Hard to pick a place to re-enter the discussion, but this one might be the most convenient.

Matus collected a series of quotes in his post #101, so I'll pick up some material from that:

Baal said: The guard cannot make up his mind so Dagny shoots him for NOT MAKING UP HIS MIND!!!!!

Dragonfly: This is indeed the most perverse passage in AS

Phil Coates said: Nowhere on that page does it suggest that she shot him BECAUSE of that

Dragonfly responded: Nonsense. Of course she shot him exactly for that reason, that is the whole meaning of the scene!

Further on I said: I don't agree with your [DF's] 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."

However, I don't agree with you, Matus, either in your claiming that Dragonfly is trying to present Rand as "an implicit [exponent] OF CALLOUS MURDER" or in your, and Laure's, explanation of why the scene is in the book.

That "to evade the responsibility of conscioussness does not free you from suffering the logical consequences from that evasion" hardly needs THAT scene, the only scene in the entire book in which one of the good guys kills someone, to dramatize. Why did Rand set up that particular scene, having specifically Dagny shoot someone? It isn't as if this guard is a real person, who really was blocking Dagny from rescuing her lover. Rand put the guard in the book, and then has Dagny dialogue with him before dispatching him. Why?

I think that Dragonfly is correct in the sentence he singled out as being the point of the scene, viz.:

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.

But I see a different emphasis and explanation. The part which I think is key is the description of Dagny's attitude in firing: "calmly and impersonally" -- i.e., with no qualm or compunction -- "she, who would have hesitated to fire at an animal" -- i.e., she doesn't see this guard as having even animal status (there my interpretation and DF's agree) -- "fired straight into the heart" -- i.e., her qualms are so nonexistent, she takes deadly deliberate aim.

My interpretation is that Rand wrote the scene -- which wasn't necessary, and is the only instance of bloodshed in the rescue mission -- because she wanted a scene featuring Dagny as untroubled executioner of a sub-animal human.

Thus I'm closer to DF's reading than to yours.

Continuing your interpretation of DF's interpretation, you write:

As evidence, he presents only two disjointed quotes, in AS he removes the context of the scene (rescuing the love of ones life and killing someone who didnt care to live in the process) and in WTL he takes a sacrastic deragotry assessment of the essence of collectivism as suggests THIS IS ACTUALLY WHAT RAND THOUGHT!

Maybe someone else has clued you in further down the thread among the posts I haven't gotten to yet: The quote DF repeated from WTL was a statement made by Kira, Rand's heroine, in the 1st edition. No, Rand wasn't "in fact an ardent supporter of intentional and callous murder," and, again, I think you're much exaggerating the nature of DF's claims when you describe them like that. But the sentiment wasn't expressed by a Rand villian, instead by the heroine in the 1st edition of Rand's 1st novel.

Ellen

___

Edited December 22, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[Chris Grieb]

As anyone read Rand's play "Think Twice"?

Far more than the scene with Dagny and the guard this is an implicit justification of not only murder but the framing of an innocent person.

[Brant Gaede]

It is impossible to "calmly and impersonally" shoot someone absent a lot of practice and experience, if then. It is also incredible that a guard would dither around like that. To depict Dagny like that is to make her completely disgusting if you pretend she's a real person, but she's not; neither is the guard. They are puppets for a gab fest. AS is the product of a woman completely unbalanced philosophically relative to the psychological. That and genius is what gives this novel its completely unique character.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It is impossible to "calmly and impersonally" shoot someone absent a lot of practice and experience, if then.

Brant,

The following is not macho talk, but the result of deep introspection and a certain amount of experience.

I have that capacity ("to 'calmly and impersonally' shoot someone"). It is one of the few things inside me that scares the bejeezus out of me. Knowing this has kept be from crossing the line and actually killing someone when I could have and even should have (in my underworld days). I am certain that "calmly and impersonally" turns into liking it over time, at least in my case. I never want to go there.

Michael

[Matus1976]

Let me make another attempt. If you are identifying a specific behavior of the other person and stating that it is a "fault", would it therefore be wiser to fefuse to respond with the same fault?

My philosophy is "tit for tat", not "the other cheek". If someone insults me, I pay the compliment back. Recently I had a discussion with Valliant on the Dawkins forum, not exactly someone I'd call my friend (Valliant I mean). But he was polite and I was polite, so we could disagree in a polite discussion without any insults.

Perhaps you've been out of the game theory loop for a while, but "Tit for Tat" is always defeated now by Tit for Tat with an occasional co-operate, because the old tit for tat would get caught in repetitive defect loops, which indeed seems to be your pattern.

[Matus1976]

Why don't you stop being a panzy

I rest my case.

As you said:

repeating a bad argument doesn't make it better

[Matus1976]

Have you read the book "Chaos"?

If you could mention the author...

James Gleick, I believe That details can be found at www.amazon.com

Ba'al Chatzaf

Gleick also writes excellent biographies, his biography of Feynman was fantastic, as was his of Newton, I highly recommend both to anyone interested in either the author or the subjects of these books.

[Matus1976]

Hard to pick a place to re-enter the discussion, but this one might be the most convenient.

Matus collected a series of quotes in his post #101, so I'll pick up some material from that:

Baal said: The guard cannot make up his mind so Dagny shoots him for NOT MAKING UP HIS MIND!!!!!

Dragonfly: This is indeed the most perverse passage in AS

Phil Coates said: Nowhere on that page does it suggest that she shot him BECAUSE of that

Dragonfly responded: Nonsense. Of course she shot him exactly for that reason, that is the whole meaning of the scene!

Further on I said: I don't agree with your [DF's] 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."

However, I don't agree with you, Matus, either in your claiming that Dragonfly is trying to present Rand as "an implicit [exponent] OF CALLOUS MURDER" or in your, and Laure's, explanation of why the scene is in the book.

I think Dragonfly has been explicitly clear on this point over and over again, at first he seemed hesitant to be explicit, but then was absolutely so.

Lets look at what he has said:

Post 9

Nonsense. Of course she shot him exactly for that reason, (he wanted to exist without the responsibility of consciousness) that is the whole meaning of the scene! ... that meaning is crystal clear, in fact she's shouting it at us: someone who cannot decide has forfeited his right to live and it is not immoral to kill him. That is the message she conveys

Post 52

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. ... 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")

Post 65

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

Dragonfly brings up the line from WTL, which you mention and he interprets as (emphasis added)

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.

You said of that (after quoting me)

As evidence, he presents only two disjointed quotes, in AS he removes the context of the scene (rescuing the love of ones life and killing someone who didnt care to live in the process) and in WTL he takes a sarcastic deragatory assessment of the essence of collectivism as suggests THIS IS ACTUALLY WHAT RAND THOUGHT!

Maybe someone else has clued you in further down the thread among the posts I haven't gotten to yet: The quote DF repeated from WTL was a statement made by Kira, Rand's heroine, in the 1st edition. No, Rand wasn't "in fact an ardent supporter of intentional and callous murder," and, again, I think you're much exaggerating the nature of DF's claims when you describe them like that. But the sentiment wasn't expressed by a Rand villain, instead by the heroine in the 1st edition of Rand's 1st novel.

Clued me in? The first time Dragonfly mentioned this ridiculous line of reasoning, I explicitly said: (in post 68)

Was it one of the communist antagonists 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.

Since I do not have WTL memorized, nor had my copy with my (shame on me I do not carry it around every where I go) I made a guess as to the possible contexts such a comment was being made. Either a villain was explicitly acknowledging the true nature of their system which Rand abhorred, or a hero was summarizing it in a sarcastic projection. Clearly the 2nd choice was right, the fact that Kira said it does not mean she was an ADVOCATE OF MASSES being ground into mud or fuel to be burned up. And not only was Kira an advocate of such callous disregard for human life, but SO WAS RAND!!!! DO YOU seriously believe that?

Kira was saying this to Andrei after he suggested that the few ought to be sacrificed to the many, this was then Kira's assessment of the 'many' that such a society which advocated such sacrificing would in fact be sacrificing themselves to. To take this as an explicit identification of Rand's opinion of the masses is absurd, as a primary theme of Rand's is that NO ONE should EVER be SACRIFICED to ANYONE, hence the culminating and most famous assessment of her philosophy

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man NOR ASK ANOTHER MAN TO LIVE FOR MINE"

For every passage you might find which can be vaguely spun to have a pseudo pro callous murder interpretation there are hundreds which can not possibly be spun in that manner, flipping through WTL we see:

"No one can tell men what they must live for. No one can take that right - because there are things in men, in the best of us, which are above all states, above all collectives"

"Who can tell me why I should live for anything for that which I want?"

"And all those things, they have no meaning for anyone on earth but me, and when I've lived a life where every hour had to have a purpose, and suddenly I discover what it's like to feel things that have no purpose but myself, and I see suddenly how sacred a purpose that can be. I know then that a life is possible whose only justification is my own Joy"

on and on.

Are you of the opinion that the most reasonable interpretation of this passage (dropped from later editions) was IN FACT Rand advocating the use of the masses as 'fuel' for the great? Especially in the light that the context of the discussion was a passionate objection to Andrie's suggestion that the few ought to be sacrificed to the many, and the whole of Rand's philosophy and life was a testament to living a non-sacrificial life.

The only praise Dragonfly can muster for Atlas Shrugged is that 'every word means something' of course he has no praise for the philosophy. He writes in post 30

I have also praised some aspects of Atlas Shrugged on OL. For example, from the very same thread: "I found the beginning of the novel masterful" and: "What I found fascinating was the writing technique, the fact that every word in every sentence was meaningful. At a first reading you only grasp a small part of that. Therefore it remains fascinating after more readings, as you discover more and more meaning in the words.

This 'meaning' he is so impressed by that is hidden in every word is nothing less than Rand's 'true' inclination of murderous barbarism - which only he was clever enough to discover. Hitler may have hidden layer upon layer in his writings, but his philosophical message was deplorable enough to overwrite any superficial technical expertise he might have attained in his rhetoric.

***

The fact is, Dragonfly has continually obfuscated and avoided defending his original claim, hiding behind alleged hurt feelings. His interpretation demands related principles to be identified - Is it right to take one statement and assume it encompasses the whole of an authors philosophy? What if some statements are apparently contradictory? What is the right degree of context to consider a statement within? Is it right to consider that every statement a character says in a book is automatically a direct reflection of exactly what the author thinks? What if some statements are apparently contradictory? etc etc

When the overwhelming majority of statements on author makes, and the live they lived and essence of their writings, can only be interpreted one way, while a few isolated statements out of tens of thousands could possibly be interpreted a different way, do we take those isolated statements as evidence of a hidden meaning, or do we look at the whole and make a reasoned judgment of the authors feelings?

You are correct that I initially was referring only to Dragonfly's interpretation, but as his behavior continued and degraded, I now suspect this mental deficiency's extend into more aspects of his life, or he is just a troll.

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

[Brant Gaede]

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

Now consider this scene: Dagny (to the guard): Chose or die. Guard: I choose not to open the gate. I would rather die than betray my duty to this facility. Dagny: I respect the fact that you think and do not try to evade the responsibility of consciousness. Therefore I cannot shoot you. DF: That's one of the best, least perverse passages I have ever read. Dagny's my kind of gal! Brant: Dagny walked up to the guard to get inside and if he didn't open up he was going to be killed. She had no interest in whether he thought or not or how well or if he was an evader of the responsibility of consciousness. You are just mixing up the narrator with the character.

--Brant

I'm the one!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm the one!

Brant,

You certainly are!

That was about as condensed and essential as you can get.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I'm the one!

Brant,

You certainly are!

That was about as condensed and essential as you can get.

The guard made it easier for Dagny, that's all.

--Brant

Edited December 24, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Ellen Stuttle]

The guard made is easier for Dagny, that's all.

No, it isn't all. You're correct in saying, as you did in post #137, that "Dagny walked up to the guard to get inside and if he didn't open up he was going to be killed." But not in saying that "She had no interest in whether he thought or not or how well or if he was an evader of the responsibility of consciousness." If she had no interest in the guard's moral status, then she wouldn't have engaged in the discussion -- and her attitude ("calmly and impersonally," etc.) in shooting the guard wouldn't have been as depicted. If her only concern had been getting into the bunker as quickly as possible, and if she'd encountered a guard blocking her way, she'd have just shot him, not "calmly and impersonally," etc., but speedily.

It's the narrator who wrote the scene as presented, but it's Dagny's state of emotion which is being described. What makes the scene "perverse" to those who see it thus is that the narrator is presenting Dagny as an ideal person; thus it's the narrator's moral evaluation on what's being shown which is objected to. The scene is there for a reason. The criticizers along with the praisers acknowledge that Rand carefully considered everything she put into the book. I submit that the reason Rand included the scene is, as I said before (post #129), "because she wanted a scene featuring Dagny as untroubled executioner of a sub-animal human."

Ellen

___

Edited December 24, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Actually the scene shows Dagny's "species solidarity" (as given by Rand quoting Nathaniel Branden in "The Ethics of Emergencies" in The Virtue of Selfishness), or in more popular words, her sense of humanity.

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

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

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

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

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

The rest of your post is just far too long, too repetitive, too eyesight-killingly deadly to read to be something I want to answer.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Michael, re your post #141, my oh my, the lengths people will got to interpreting away the details of what the lady wrote.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael, re your post #141, my oh my, the lengths people will got to interpreting away the details of what the lady wrote.

Ellen,

Funny. I have had the same feeling about your interpretation about Dagny's interest in the guard's moral status (but switching the goal). I personally don't think Dagny (or Rand) cared one way or another about the guard outside of a general sense of humanity. "I don't think of you" sounds a lot more Randish to me than a need to control someone unknown and punish him for the wrong thinking. Rand was more inclined to let reality punish such people.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Michael, Ellen, now is the time to start calling each other names.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I could just shoot her.

(Just joking. Merry Christmas, all.)

Michael

[John Dailey]

MSK:

~ No. That's not acceptable.

~ You must use (well, verbal anyways) Aikido, else you're a sick, killer-oriented, no-goodnick clearly having lost emotional control via total exasperation from arguing with...a 'guard' who guards a viewpoint...about something not worth arguing about for 3 pages (more than Dagny and the guard!)

Happy Xmas and Merry Holidays.

( BANG!)

LLAP

J:D

[Philip Coates]

I'm not sure which is the most irritating to me about this thread: (A) the tendency of too much of it toward ad hominem. Or ((B)) the ludicrous, absurd, unending length of it, beating a relatively small passage to death -- with no one willing to shut up and not have the last word - and the tendency to repeat themselves every twenty posts or so.

I just can't decide between A and B. For the life of me. I J U ST C A N " T D E C I D E

I think this makes me an immoral sack of shit and someone should just shoot me . . . . . . Merry Christmas, anyway!!!

[Brant Gaede]

U too, Phiol, Merry Xmass and all of that!

--bRANT

[Brant Gaede]

Dup deleted

Edited December 26, 2007 by Brant Gaede