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

[Alfonso Jones]

Subject: Simultaneous Multiple Perspectives on Atlas (and Objectivism)

I want to step back for a moment from the ongoing posting I've been doing defending Atlas.

(snip)

Excellent post, Philip.

Bill P

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Deaths of the Innocent in Literature

Do people who think Eddie Willers should have been saved -- otherwise it represents hard-heartedness, lack of caring by the author, also think Kira should have lived at the end of We the Living? And that that book, about the horrors of communism and its consequences, should have had a 'happy ending'?

Back to Atlas: What about Cherryl and the Wet Nurse? They die. Should they have lived also? Why not?

Isn't it terribly, terribly vicious and "cruel" of Rand to always be unconcerned, non-empathetic, and killing off so many innocent people?

Edited October 29, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Xray]

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

What is unconvincing about that?

The unrealism.

Frankly, who in real lifem (even if they have high regard for each other, would 'rejoice' over the reasons of his/her lover falling in love with someone else?

Edited October 29, 2009 by Xray

[jeffrey smith]

Subject: Deaths of the Innocent in Literature

Do people who think Eddie Willers should have been saved -- otherwise it represents hard-heartedness, lack of caring by the author, also think Kira should have lived at the end of We the Living? And that that book, about the horrors of communism and its consequences, should have had a 'happy ending'?

Back to Atlas: What about Cherryl and the Wet Nurse? They die. Should they have lived also? Why not?

Isn't it terribly, terribly vicious and "cruel" of Rand to always be unconcerned, non-empathetic, and killing off so many innocent people?

I'd say that We the Living is a totally different situation from Atlas Shrugged. Anything that even comes close to a "happy ending" would have made nonsense of We the Living.

And I would differentiate Eddie from Cherryl and the Wet Nurse, because Eddie is a different sort of character.

Eddie is, in essence, an ordinary person who puts Objectivist ethics into practice: he attempts to live as homo productivis, as Rand's version of man qua man. He's not heroic, but he's you and me trying to be rational human beings, with rational goals and values, to the best of his ability as the circumstances around him allow.

And he still gets screwed over in the end. Malevolent universe, anyone?

Rand could have let him find some sort of refuge--not necessarily Galt's Gulch--to illustrate the contention that living as man qua man can get you through the even the worst of circumstances, if you try.

Rand could have let him be rescued by the Galt's Gulch community--to illustrate that rational people respect each other and will help each other out of rational self interest (anyone here think Eddie would not have been able to make valuable contributions to the Gulch community and the effort of rebuilding?--so that Dagny or the others rescuing him would not have been altruistic but merely a rational investment in the future?)

But instead she leaves him stranded, as if neither she nor anyone in Galt's Gulch cares that he got screwed over in the end.

BTW, Phil, your other post on Simultaneous Perspectives, was excellent. The only parts I wouldn't agree on are (as you might guess) the literary value of AS, and on that I'm reserving judgment. (Real life keeps getting in the way, so I have yet to obtain an unmutilated copy. With luck, that will be done this weekend.)

Jeffrey S.

Edited October 29, 2009 by jeffrey smith

[Philip Coates]

> Real life keeps getting in the way

Well, Jesus, Jeffrey, that's no excuse.

Edited October 29, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Xray]

[replying To DF]:

I do think your general criticism about AR's lack of empathy is valid, however. I think it's basically a matter of her brains unbalancing the rest of her and her tendency to focus on the big picture at the expense of the rest. If you tend to consider things mostly deductively you miss a lot of real life detail.

Interesting comment by Sam Anderson: http://nymag.com/arts/books/features/60120/

"After reading the details of Rand’s early life, I find it hard to think of Objectivism as very objective at all—it looks more like a rational program retrofitted to a lifelong temperament, a fantasy world created to cancel the nightmare of a terrifying childhood. This is the comedy, the tragedy, and the power of Rand: She built a glorious imaginary empire on that nuclear-grade temperament, then devoted every ounce of her will and intelligence to proving it was all pure reason." (end quote)

That pretty much sums it up imo.

Edited October 29, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Um Folks:

Eddie Willers was an idiot.

He chose to commit suicide instead of cannibalizing what he needed from the train and striking out with a couple of women from the train and set up a compound.

He could call it None Salt Lake City.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

[replying To DF]:

I do think your general criticism about AR's lack of empathy is valid, however. I think it's basically a matter of her brains unbalancing the rest of her and her tendency to focus on the big picture at the expense of the rest. If you tend to consider things mostly deductively you miss a lot of real life detail.

Interesting comment by Sam Anderson: http://nymag.com/art...features/60120/

"After reading the details of Rand’s early life, I find it hard to think of Objectivism as very objective at all—it looks more like a rational program retrofitted to a lifelong temperament, a fantasy world created to cancel the nightmare of a terrifying childhood. This is the comedy, the tragedy, and the power of Rand: She built a glorious imaginary empire on that nuclear-grade temperament, then devoted every ounce of her will and intelligence to proving it was all pure reason." (end quote)

That pretty much sums it up imo.

You forgot her tremendous "No!" to collectivism and collectivists. As an individualist you should be appreciative of that--of her essential individualism which transcends all the other criticism even the criticism where by her espousal of individualism, personally and professionally, fell short.

--Brant

[Dragonfly]

> millions of people will have died.

You demonize Rand for deaths caused by the dictators. You -completely ignored- my what-is-the-alternative question? Let yourself and the world be enslaved? Have you ever heard of an American named Patrick Henry? Have you heard of the idea that death is preferable to slavery?

You mean death of others is preferable to slavery? Because that is what we're talking about here. The "what is the alternative" question is meaningless, as the notion that you can destroy the world by a few innovators going on strike is totally unrealistic. In reality there is of course nothing against a few innovators going on strike as the harm they cause by doing so is negligible. But in the (unreal) context of AS it does become a problem, just like refusing to act when proper action could save a life (the injured man at the roadside). A more realistic version would be a general strike of doctors when these even refuse to treat people who need medical treatment to survive. I don't think that "becoming enslaved" (still a far cry from being a slave in the classical sense) is a valid excuse. And even if you think it is, it's not something that can happen without remorse and feelings of guilt, in contrast to the cavalier manner of Galt, who without pain or fear or guilt declares "the road is cleared" (all the bad patients are dead!)

But the extended discussion actually supports my points: She is giving him chances, rejecting his stalling and delaying pulling the trigger till it is clear he will continue to block her, and with every passing moment of discussion the chances their attempt will fail increases exponentially in a well-guarded place. [Also, fully consider Brant's stone cold sober, thoughtful points on the guard issue in post #205.] Plus he is physically blocking her. What alternative do you suggest for her? Wrestle with him and let him knock the gun away or break her neck? Dragonfly, do you truly not get that this danger is mounting with every minute issue in an invasion of this kind? Again -- I find it frustrating to repeat myself -- but I already made this simple point.

The problem is that your point is not valid. I observe that when Objectivists defend the scene of Dagny shooting the guard, that they treat it as if Rand is a naturalist writer who describes some real action, as your questions (what alternative do you suggest for her? Wrestle with him and let him knock the gun away or break her neck?) again illustrate. Rand describes herself however as a romantic realist, whose writing is a stylized version of reality. She created the scene and could have done that in many different ways, for example 1) there is no guard at all there, 2) if he is there, he is easily neutralized by a superhero like d'Anconia, 3) Dagny could have disabled him by shooting the weapon out of his hand, etc. etc. When every second counts, she could have shot him immediately, you can imagine that such collateral damage can be necessary in a rescue operation (see also Bob's post here. Instead Rand inserts this passage as a philosophical lesson, and by doing that she doesn't soften the whole thing up, as Brant suggests, on the contrary, she makes it much harder by mentally torturing the guard. Jonathan has also made some astute remarks about that scene here.

> she is obviously teaching us a philosophical lesson here, namely that a man who cannot take a decision is less than an animal and can therefore be killed without any scruples.

No. the philosophical lesson is that a man who cannot make a decision is harmed by reality. [The literal set up of the raid is just one way to make that point. You generally make the mistake of taking the situations literally....rather than as stylized, a dramatization. But, in this case, yes he is endangering Dagny's life and Galt's and the whole mission.]

No, it is you who take the scene literally instead of part of a Randian stylized universe. If she had wanted to show that a man who is not being able to make a decision is harmed by reality, there would be thousands of ways she could have done that without compromising Dagny (again: Rand creates the scenes and does not reproduce literally some real action). But she clearly gives the clue in the last sentence of that scene:

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

There is only one conclusion possible: Dagny (who no doubt represents Rand's own ideas here) sees that guard, who cannot make up his mind (as he has insufficient information, as Jonathan correctly observed) as something lower than an animal, and has no compunction at all to shoot him. That is the core of that scene, the reason that she put it into the book, and not some naturalist excuse that he happened to be in the way by Galt's rescue (which she could have solved in many other ways, as I already indicated).

Moreover, you are also making the mistake of taking literally the fact that enemies of freedom and reason die in the tunnel crash. Rand's purpose is not to gloat over deaths.

Whether it is her purpose or not, it is the impression that many readers (true-blue Objectivists included) gain from that scene. The point in judging a book is not what the writer "really" meant to write, but what the effect is on the reader. And if a certain passage troubles many readers, then that is either a flaw in the book (it doesn't convey what it's meant to convey) or a trait of the writer that is unpalatable to many readers. Take your choice.

DF, I already pointed out that this is when decay is far advanced. More importantly, you may be unaware, but this is a WORK OF FICTION. At the risk of repeating myself, not every point has to have happened in reality, or be likely to happen, or to happen in exactly that way. As an author, you are allowed to dramatize, to exaggerate, to heighten the tension, to simplify, to stress. Don't be brainwashed by a century of too naturalist standards of too literal realism.

I'm not a fan of naturalist writing. But while dramatization, exaggeration etc. may be useful methods in writing "romantic realism" (in Rand's sense), this is no license for "anything goes", it still must be somehow convincing, and to many people it is not convincing.

DF, This sort of thing has been -specifically- addressed by Rand. Also by Peikoff, by Branden, by Kelley. Rational egoism does not mean you let people injured just die without lifting a finger or making the slightest effort. This is pretty basic for a student of Objectivism.

The point is that this is not the message conveyed by AS, as I've shown above.

I've about given up on Xray who not only disagrees with but misstates entry-level Objectivism in epistemology, ethics, and politics [and then wants people to correct her, give her a basic education on things which Rand explains more clearly], but I really wish you thoroughly knew Objectivist philosophy (starting with Rand's non-fiction works and some of the stock responses to questions) before you make wild claims about issues like this. You seem unschooled in Objectivism much beyond the novels and maybe one or two essays. And its views on many concrete applications (and, no, you can't get them just from a work of fiction.)

Oh, I certainly know Objectivism quite thoroughly. I've read everything that has been published by Rand, during her life and posthumously, and most of it I've reread many times (yes, I was a fanatic in my young years, although I had many disagreements already then).

Objectivism is a highly sophisticated and difficult philosophy. Don't underestimate.

I've studied in my life some quite difficult things; compared to those Objectivism is really a small piece of cake.

[Dragonfly]

Do people who think Eddie Willers should have been saved -- otherwise it represents hard-heartedness, lack of caring by the author, also think Kira should have lived at the end of We the Living? And that that book, about the horrors of communism and its consequences, should have had a 'happy ending'?

As I already said in a previous post: it's not so much the tragic fate of Willers that is disturbing as the callousness of the heroes with regard to him. He is loyal, he is quite efficient at his work, his philosophy is that of the heroes - but he has one fatal defect: he is not a great innovator. That's apparently enough to dismiss him as some second-class person. He loves Dagny, but Dagny doesn't love him in return. Of course the naturalist argument that it could in reality happen that Dagny doesn't love him is invalid here. Rand is the puppet master here and whether Dagny loves Eddie or not is her deliberate choice. That Dagny doesn't love Eddie has an obvious reason: as a second-class person he is not good enough for her, she can only love real heroes.

The heroes don't even try to save Eddie or to help him in any way. That point is not the same as demonstrating that a good man of limited ability will be the victim in a decaying society. That point could have been made differently (as was done with Cherryl and the Wet Nurse), but not the way it was done in the book.

Back to Atlas: What about Cherryl and the Wet Nurse? They die. Should they have lived also? Why not?

See above.

Isn't it terribly, terribly vicious and "cruel" of Rand to always be unconcerned, non-empathetic, and killing off so many innocent people?

Killing innocent people in a book in itself doesn't have to be cruel, it may be quite on the contrary convey a feeling of empathy and solidarity. It is the callous attitude of the "heroes" towards the killing that is cruel.

[Selene]

Additionally, Dragonfly, that callous insensitivity is a slow and subtle poison in the ideas because it should be rejected.

That callousness always leaves us, as advocates, handicapped by the essentially correct, but misguided attack that elements of the ideas are "impractical" and "unrealistic" or real people do not act that way.

Essentially, some people are that callous and that unfeeling.

It is a volitional choice. I believe the choice Ayn made in that area was wrong. I make a volitional choice not to be that way and it is purely selfish.

Excellent refutations, my complements.

Adam

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Dragonfly,

I don't think Rand was trying to make a callous, elitist point with Eddie. I think she was trying to communicate who the most unfortunate victims of bad economic policies and bad philosophy are. Not the innovators, but honest, productive men who've built lives and can't (physically or psychologically) start over.

Notice also that Eddie does not necessarily die. Rand leaves him in a bad spot on a stranded train in the middle of nowhere. He makes the choice to stay with the railroad he can't give up.

Jim

[Jonathan]

Subject: Simultaneous Multiple Perspectives on Atlas (and Objectivism)

I want to step back for a moment from the ongoing posting I've been doing defending Atlas.

I am spending time defending the book as great and powerful literature. But if I could take that as understood (apparently not with this group), I believe one ought to be more advanced and have a multiple perspective on Atlas (and on Rand and Objectivism). And keep all of these things in mind simultaneously:

1. Fundamental Value: The book is important and powerful (and skillful, effective as literature) -- the points that I have been arguing here. And likewise for the ideas about life contained therein.

The book is important, powerful, skillfully written and effective as literature to you, as well as to me and many others, but it is not those things to other people, and their interpretations and evaluations are no less legitimate than yours.

2A. Branching out and having a life: One should not be an Atlas-droid or solely involved with Objectivism. Or let one's life center around philosophizing or politics-izing. Objectivism and Rand's writing are a starting point in life. You need a philosophy to start with. But once you have it, you can move on...just like you can move on after you have mastered riding a bike. You need to build on it and expand on it by loving other things which are very different, not necessarily philosophical or sometimes not even what's conventionally called intellectual at all - whether it be siamese cats or classic Greek sculpture or gardening. In other words, you have to be well-rounded, not a narrow ideologue.

2B. A sphere of personal values that are totally alien to those of Rand's fiction, yet valid: There are moods and emotions and values which Rand never expressed in fiction or philosophy which are valid, part of being human, yet do not contradict her ideas and which one needs to be consumed by. Example: I just finished listening to a lovely, bittersweet, country and western song by Sarah Evans about the highs and the lows or the arc of a love affair called "I learned that from you". I strongly suspect Rand and many Oists would not fully appreciate the subtlelty and nostalgia and lyricism of this and many of the songs I love. But it is quite appropriate that I have that very personal and quirky realm of things that resonate with me, given the my very individual set of experiences and preferences. You have to have a full life. And what that is varies for people. For me it partly involves the arts (literature, music, visual arts, drama) much more than I had

fully realized...and I've leaned too far toward science and technology.

Right, and some people who have had much greater exposure to the arts have different experiences and preferences which lead them to rate Rand's art as being of higher or lower quality or value than you do.

All three of these are necessary to all healthy and mature human beings. The first is what I might call the Oist base. The last two are the course you build upon -- and to some extent after that is solid and integrated.

An example of a multiple perspective: Her characters are real and inspiring. They fit the novel. But they don't include everything about life. So, does one consider them as complete role models?

Yes one would use them as role models, but not completely. From one perspective, you can hungrily absorb Roark's independence and unshakeable integrity.

I agree. One might interpret Roark as having unshakeable integrity when it came to his architectural designs, and one might be inspired by it.

On the other hand, one might also view Roark as ultimately lacking integrity, and honesty, when it came to the deception he was willing to use in order to work on a dream project (a project whose existence he opposed on philosophical grounds but was nevertheless willing to work on it).

One might also interpret Roark as self-important to the point of being criminal and delusional. After all, he destroyed others' property for aesthetic reasons, and because those in charge of it didn't abide by a contract that they didn't have with him. If you read his courtroom speech while keeping in mind that those in charge of the Cortland project didn't ask him to design it, his comments about what was demanded of him sound rather silly. Society didn't demand that he surrender the product of his mind or his integrity. They demanded nothing from him.

There are many possible interpretations and evaluations of the novel's meaning and merit.

Do people who think Eddie Willers should have been saved -- otherwise it represents hard-heartedness, lack of caring by the author, also think Kira should have lived at the end of We the Living?

I don't get that impression.

And that that book, about the horrors of communism and its consequences, should have had a 'happy ending'?

I think that We The Living should only have had a happy ending if Rand's complaints about novels which lack happy endings also apply to her novels. Novels about the horrors of things other than communism have tragic endings for reasons which are just as legitimate as the reasons that Rand's fans offer when exempting her art from her statements about happy endings.

Back to Atlas: What about Cherryl and the Wet Nurse? They die. Should they have lived also? Why not?

The issue isn't that good or innocent people died, but that Galt and company were actively working to trigger an avalanche but were nevertheless nonchalant in allowing a good friend to go walking off alone on the slopes.

Isn't it terribly, terribly vicious and "cruel" of Rand to always be unconcerned, non-empathetic, and killing off so many innocent people?

No, what people complain about as being cruel is not that innocent people die in Rand's novels, but that no concern is shown for a close personal friend who is in danger due to the motor of the world being stopped by his friends.

Eddie was vital to the running of Taggart Transcontinental, and, for what it's worth, I think that readers who object to Rand's handling of him would have been satisfied if Galt had taken him away from Dagny as one of the last straws in trying to break her.

J

[Xray]

Objectivism is a highly sophisticated and difficult philosophy. Don't underestimate.

Imo it is neither highly sophisticated nor difficult, but quite simple actually.

Objectivism's false premise lies in Rand's belief that her subjective preferences were "rational, objective values".

Its ballooned-up epistemology gives the impression that "concept formation"/categorizing is a mentally challengig feat - it is not.

But Rand wanted it to make it look 'scientific' because she made claims about the correctness of her thinking, hence her tying to "root" it in epistemology.

Also, a catalog of alleged "objective values" presented as "a one set for all", contradicts the very idea of indvidualism imo.

Edited October 30, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

[replying To DF]:

I do think your general criticism about AR's lack of empathy is valid, however. I think it's basically a matter of her brains unbalancing the rest of her and her tendency to focus on the big picture at the expense of the rest. If you tend to consider things mostly deductively you miss a lot of real life detail.

Interesting comment by Sam Anderson: http://nymag.com/art...features/60120/

"After reading the details of Rand’s early life, I find it hard to think of Objectivism as very objective at all—it looks more like a rational program retrofitted to a lifelong temperament, a fantasy world created to cancel the nightmare of a terrifying childhood. This is the comedy, the tragedy, and the power of Rand: She built a glorious imaginary empire on that nuclear-grade temperament, then devoted every ounce of her will and intelligence to proving it was all pure reason." (end quote)

That pretty much sums it up imo.

You forgot her tremendous "No!" to collectivism and collectivists. As an individualist you should be appreciative of that--of her essential individualism which transcends all the other criticism even the criticism where by her espousal of individualism, personally and professionally, fell short.

--Brant

But how much individualism did she grant to those who disagreed with points of her philosophy?

As for her fiction, Galt's Gulch is pretty collectivist imo, with Galt having characteristics of a Big Brother is Watching You.

[Selene]

Ms. Xray:

"...Galt's Gulch is pretty collectivist..."

Dramatic statement.

How are you defining collectivism for this thread?

Adam

typed very slowly so Ms. Xray could read it

[Xray]

> millions of people will have died.

You demonize Rand for deaths caused by the dictators. You -completely ignored- my what-is-the-alternative question? Let yourself and the world be enslaved? Have you ever heard of an American named Patrick Henry? Have you heard of the idea that death is preferable to slavery?

You mean death of others is preferable to slavery? Because that is what we're talking about here. The "what is the alternative" question is meaningless, as the notion that you can destroy the world by a few innovators going on strike is totally unrealistic. In reality there is of course nothing against a few innovators going on strike as the harm they cause by doing so is negligible. But in the (unreal) context of AS it does become a problem, just like refusing to act when proper action could save a life (the injured man at the roadside). A more realistic version would be a general strike of doctors when these even refuse to treat people who need medical treatment to survive. I don't think that "becoming enslaved" (still a far cry from being a slave in the classical sense) is a valid excuse. And even if you think it is, it's not something that can happen without remorse and feelings of guilt, in contrast to the cavalier manner of Galt, who without pain or fear or guilt declares "the road is cleared" (all the bad patients are dead!)

So true, DF.

Phil: Rand stresses life as the "ultimate value", but what about the lives of all those other people?

Edited October 30, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

[replying To DF]:

I do think your general criticism about AR's lack of empathy is valid, however. I think it's basically a matter of her brains unbalancing the rest of her and her tendency to focus on the big picture at the expense of the rest. If you tend to consider things mostly deductively you miss a lot of real life detail.

Interesting comment by Sam Anderson: http://nymag.com/art...features/60120/

"After reading the details of Rand's early life, I find it hard to think of Objectivism as very objective at all—it looks more like a rational program retrofitted to a lifelong temperament, a fantasy world created to cancel the nightmare of a terrifying childhood. This is the comedy, the tragedy, and the power of Rand: She built a glorious imaginary empire on that nuclear-grade temperament, then devoted every ounce of her will and intelligence to proving it was all pure reason." (end quote)

That pretty much sums it up imo.

You forgot her tremendous "No!" to collectivism and collectivists. As an individualist you should be appreciative of that--of her essential individualism which transcends all the other criticism even the criticism where by her espousal of individualism, personally and professionally, fell short.

--Brant

But how much individualism did she grant to those who disagreed with points of her philosophy?

Individualism--freedom--is not granted.

--Brant

[Selene]

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

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

Ms. Xray:

I am so sorry...I assumed that was a rhetorical question. My error.

Why would you interject the Holy Bible into this discussion?

And if you were, which one? I mean, the old testament? Or the new testament?

And which version of the new testament? King James?

Atlas Shrugged is a novel, isn't it?

Is that a sufficient answer?

Adam

peaceful that Ms. Xray has closure on that question

[Xray]

quote:

"But how much individualism did she grant to those who disagreed with points of her philosophy?" (Xray)

Individualism--freedom--is not granted.

I may have chosen the wrong term in using "grant"; what I meant was 'allow, concede'.

So here is the question rephrased:

But how much individualism did she allow those who disagreed with points of her philosophy?

Edited October 30, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Ms. Xray:

"...Galt's Gulch is pretty collectivist..."

Dramatic statement.

How are you defining collectivism for this thread?

Adam

typed very slowly so Ms. Xray could read it

There is no such thing as a private definition, i. e. the denotation of word can't be altered by an individual without this person running into major problems in communication. For example, I can't use the audiovisual symbol "book" when I mean "key" and arbitrarily declare "that's my meaning". Won't work.

Rand confused things here in thinking she could define e. g. "selfless" in her own way, while ignoring the meaning the English language has for the word, which is diametrically opposed to the meaning she attached to it. The same with value-seeking plants. Plants can't attribute value, they are as incapable of doing this as e. g. a tree is incapable of committing suicide.

So much for denotation.

As opposed to denotation, the connotative use of a word conveys emotial coloration, feelings, associations and valuing; the term 'collectivist' was used in a connotative sense by me here. In terms of connotation, there is a lot of variation possible in communication.

The term 'collectivism' denotes a political/economic system:

"The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government". http://www.thefreedictionary.com/collectivism

The connotation I attach to the term collectivism is "control", "'one set for all' values", "all functioning in the same way", also "dictatorship" (for example, Galt decides for Dagny "you are going to stay here for a month". He tells her that she has broken the rules of the valley (deliberately disregarding that Dagny was not even aware that the valley existed when her plane crashed there).

So that's the personal associations attached by me to the term 'collectivist' which I used in reference to the brave new world of Galt's Gulch.

As an individualist, such a form of living would completely go against my grain.

typed very slowly so Ms. Xray could read it

explained very thoroughly so Mr. Selene could understand it.

Edited October 30, 2009 by Xray

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Well, Goddamn it All to Hell!

After all these people endlessly making a claim and all these posts claiming that Eddie being left to die is uncaring on the part of the heroes, I go back and look in the book to reassure myself about my recollection that the exact circumstances were not as "callous" as per DF and others, or a stain on the novel:

On p. 1036 (Signet PB, middle of part III, ch. VIII), Eddie chooses to stay and fight for the railroad. Dagny, because she cares about his welfare, tries to get him not to and says that it is too dangerous. But he is adamant.

So the point about Eddie simply being abandoned to death with no one caring about him or wanting to save him is COMPLETELY FALSE as a matter of simple fact.

(For chrissake, can't people even go look something up in the book to see if their recollections are accurate before they make wild charges? Dammit!)

Edited October 30, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Xray]

Why would you interject the Holy Bible into this discussion?

You said you have read AS more times that than years I have spent on earth (which would make it 54 times at least). Now such repeated reading allows the inference of you believing in AS the same way as others believe in the Bible.

And if you were, which one? I mean, the old testament? Or the new testament?

The Bible contains both.

And which version of the new testament? King James?

That's irrelevant here. Just take your pick.

Atlas Shrugged is a novel, isn't it?

It is a work of fiction, yes.

Just as the Bible is in large parts. If you denied it, you would have to believe that the world was created in seven days.

Is that a sufficient answer?

Can't answer that since you mostly asked questions which I answered. Hope it was of help. In case you disagree with my inference of AS being some kind of bible for you, feel free to explain why you diasagree.

Have you read the article by Rothbard, in which an Ojectivist couple is mentioned who had their wedding ceremony using AS instead of the Bible?

You see, it is not far-fetched to compare AS to being a bible for some Objectivists.

Ms. Xray:

I am so sorry...I assumed that was a rhetorical question. My error.

Adam

peaceful that Ms. Xray has closure on that question

What shall we call that latest role of yours? "Mr. Selene, the mild-mannered gentleman"? ;)

Edited October 30, 2009 by Xray

[jeffrey smith]

Subject: Well, Goddamn it All to Hell!

(For chrissake, can't people even go look something up in the book to see if their recollections are accurate before they make wild charges? Dammit!)

But that would take all the fun out!

Jeff S.

[Dragonfly]

On p. 1036 (Signet PB, middle of part III, ch. VIII), Eddie chooses to stay and fight for the railroad. Dagny, because she cares about his welfare, tries to get him not to and says that it is too dangerous. But he is adamant.

So the point about Eddie simply being abandoned to death with no one caring about him or wanting to save him is COMPLETELY FALSE as a matter of simple fact.

(For chrissake, can't people even go look something up in the book to see if their recollections are accurate before they make wild charges? Dammit!)

Oh, I know that passage quite well, here is the essential part:

"I can't leave New York," she answered stonily.

"I know," he said softly. "That's why it's I who'll go there to straighten things out. At least, to find a man to put in charge.”

"No! I don't want you to. It's too dangerous. And what for? It doesn't matter now. There's nothing to save."

"It's still Taggart Transcontinental. I'll stand by it, Dagny, wherever you go, you'll always be able to build a railroad. I couldn't. I don't even

want to make a new start. Not any more. Not after what I've seen. You should. I can't. Let me do what I can."

"Eddie! Don't you want—" She stopped, knowing that it was useless.

"All right, Eddie. If you wish."

Dagny wanting to save Eddie? The only "attempts" are: "No! I don't want you to" and an unfinished sentence, "knowing that is was useless". Well, that is giving up very quickly if she really cared about what would happen with Eddie. This passage conveys clearly that she really doesn't care much about his fate. How does she know that trying to convince him would be useless? In her place I would have been convinced that Eddie had no realistic appreciation of the danger and/or that he was in a depressive state (which would be quite understandable), from which I'd at least try to get him away to see things more positively. But no such empathy with Dagny, within a few seconds she already gives up.