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


brg253

Recommended Posts

> Don't you think Lillian Rearden and Hank's mother qualify as on a par with the male villains. [Adam]

Good point, sexist porker Phil forgot to include them!! And they are well-developed villains, especially Lillian. So much for the false idea that all the bad guys in Atlas are 'cardboard' or wooden or one-dimensional.

But isn't Lillian's "villainous" behavior also a reaction to how she was being treated by her husband who rejected her right from the start? Who wouldn't get bitter feelings having to live like that?

When Lillian finally finds out about Rearden's adulterous relationship with Dagny, he threatens that he would "beat her up" if she ever dared to mention Dagny's name. I ask myself who is behaving like a 'villain' here.

Lillian is not only being cheated on, into the bargain she is being threatened with physical violence by her adulterous husband, the Randian 'hero' Rearden.

Here she comes...finally stripped of logic she hurls slurs... fascinating

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 488
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

> I don't think that readers find the 'accelerated deterioration' in itself so implausible, but the fact that it would be at all possible to destroy the world by picking a few dozen people and inciting them to strike. [Dragonfly]

But remember that this is portrayed as a world some time in the future which has been dreadfully weakened and dumbed down already [on this last point, I think that is happening due to education - schools graduating people in this country who can't read, calculate, write, or think]. So, it's not like there are a whole lot of people to fill their shoes. (And all those people's states and their collapsed economies.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Don't you think Lillian Rearden and Hank's mother qualify as on a par with the male villains. [Adam]

Good point, sexist porker Phil forgot to include them!! And they are well-developed villains, especially Lillian. So much for the false idea that all the bad guys in Atlas are 'cardboard' or wooden or one-dimensional.

But isn't Lillian's "villainous" behavior also a reaction to how she was being treated by her husband who rejected her right from the start? Who wouldn't get bitter feelings having to live like that?

When Lillian finally finds out about Rearden's adulterous relationship with Dagny, he threatens that he would "beat her up" if she ever dared to mention Dagny's name. I ask myself who is behaving like a 'villain' here.

Lillian is not only being cheated on, into the bargain she is being threatened with physical violence by her adulterous husband, the Randian 'hero' Rearden.

Yes, but that was before he heard Galt's speech. mellow.gif He did leave his family to die, too: mother, ex and brother. If you're a character in a novel you do what a character in a novel does. That's the reality you reference. If you're reading a novel, think twice, especially if you intend to leave your family for a cult.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phillip:

Have you considered not hitting the bait?

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: More on the "Rand is Unrealistic" Fallacy

> how plausible the story is (that is, could it happen in real life, given the correct set of circumstances).

Jeffrrey, that rapid a set of economic / intellectual / social / gang warfare deterioration couldn't happen in real life, but then neither could the events of myth or fantasy. Does one condemnt the literature or myth or fantasy (or science fiction) becaues they couldn't happen, are metaphysically impossible, are a "stretch"? The events of the Odyssey or the Iliad could not happen in real life, but no one would say of them (as they do of Atlas) that they are disqualified from being great literature because they are not "realistic."

Also: Achilles is a creation of fiction, as is Odysseus, as are Dagny and Rearden and Roark. You can't condemn one as unrealistic unless you condemn them all.

People who don't like or don't agree with an author's sense of life, or perspective, or politics, or views of human nature tend to try to come up with words to wrap around that. And if you [i don't necessarily mean you personally] don't think it is possible for a person of complete integrity to exist, everyone has flaws in this area or in ethics more widely, you will say Roark (to take just one of the literary heroes) is "unrealistic" and will condemn the novel -literarily- (not just philosophically) for that reason.

The key point is that no one claims that Achilles is a realistic hero, and that the Iliad is a work of realism.

Whereas that claim is made for AS and its characters. Therefore it is appropriate to judge AS as a realistic work in a way that it is not appropriate to judge the Iliad. One of the places Fountainhead succeeds where AS does not is that it is a more realistic novel: Rand presents Roark and his world in a way that makes his existence (that is, as a man of complete integrity) plausible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: More on the "Rand is Unrealistic" Fallacy

> how plausible the story is (that is, could it happen in real life, given the correct set of circumstances).

You can't condemn one as unrealistic unless you condemn them all.

Why not? One is a myth of history and the other is a future projection...yes

I don't think it is possible for a person of complete integrity to exist, everyone has flaws in this area or in ethics..."

Agreed that is why it is an ideal.

The key point is that no one claims that Achilles is a realistic hero, and that the Iliad is a work of realism.

Whereas that claim is made for AS and its characters.

See I never had that as an issue with Ayn, I thought it was great persuasion and propaganda, but if you took it 100% - I think you wind up at Nat's.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant Gaede: If you're reading a novel, think twice, especially if you intend to leave your family for a cult.

There certainly will be a lot of conflict if one partner is a fervent Objectivist and the other is not.

But even with both being Objectivists, it can get quite bizarre - just think of the article mentioning an Objectivist couple having their wedding ceremony using a copy of Atlas Shrugged like others used the Bible.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant Gaede: If you're reading a novel, think twice, especially if you intend to leave your family for a cult.

There certainly will be a lot of conflict if one partner is a fervent Objectivist and the other is not.

But even with both being Objectivists, it can get quite bizarre - just think of the article mentioning an Objectivist couple having their wedding ceremony using a copy of Atlas Shrugged like others used the Bible.

Generally speaking an Objectivist should not be romantically involved with another Objectivist so they can keep the relationship sane.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Have you considered not hitting the bait?

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

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

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

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> The key point is that no one claims that Achilles is a realistic hero, and that the Iliad is a work of realism. Whereas that claim is made for AS and its characters. Therefore it is appropriate to judge AS as a realistic work in a way that it is not appropriate to judge the Iliad. [Jeffrey]

It's not appropriate to judge it as X, just because Rand claims it as X. You have to judge it by what it actually is.

Moreover, Rand's novels are not 'realism' in the common literary sense, they are 'romantic realism'. "Realism in the visual arts and literature is the depiction of subjects as they appear in everyday life, without embellishment or interpretation." (wkpd).

That's not what she's doing, so you can't judge her as attempting that but failing. Now if you wanted to say her selectivity and stylization, her use of archetypes is bad - stylization is bad - then you'd have to make an actual argument about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant Gaede: If you're reading a novel, think twice, especially if you intend to leave your family for a cult.

There certainly will be a lot of conflict if one partner is a fervent Objectivist and the other is not.

But even with both being Objectivists, it can get quite bizarre - just think of the article mentioning an Objectivist couple having their wedding ceremony using a copy of Atlas Shrugged like others used the Bible.

Generally speaking an Objectivist should not be romantically involved with another Objectivist so they can keep the relationship sane.

--Brant

But if one isn't an Objectivist and the other is not, I can't see how it would work either. Can you?`

For Objectivism, suppose a person seriously tries to LIVE according to its doctrine, will deply affect every part of his/her life.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant Gaede: If you're reading a novel, think twice, especially if you intend to leave your family for a cult.

There certainly will be a lot of conflict if one partner is a fervent Objectivist and the other is not.

But even with both being Objectivists, it can get quite bizarre - just think of the article mentioning an Objectivist couple having their wedding ceremony using a copy of Atlas Shrugged like others used the Bible.

Generally speaking an Objectivist should not be romantically involved with another Objectivist so they can keep the relationship sane.

--Brant

But if one isn't an Objectivist and the other is not, I can't see how it would work either. Can you?`

For Objectivism, suppose a person seriously tries to LIVE according to its doctrine, will deply affect every part of his/her life.

Could you take a little more time writing your replies? It's hard to figure this out, especially the first sentence.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you take a little more time writing your replies? It's hard to figure this out, especially the first sentence.

Sorry about my sloppy typing - I meant to write "if one is an Objectivist and the other is not".

So here is the corrected version:

But if one is an Objectivist and the other is not, I can't see how it would work either. Can you?`

For Objectivism, suppose a person seriously tries to LIVE according to its doctrine, will deeply affect every part of his/her life.

Being an Objectivist means accepting as absolutes the alleged "objective values" presented in the doctrine. If the partner does not share them, he/she will be accused of being in error. This is going to lead to major conflict imo.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you take a little more time writing your replies? It's hard to figure this out, especially the first sentence.

Sorry about my sloppy typing - I meant to write "if one is an Objectivist and the other is not".

So here is the corrected version:

But if one is an Objectivist and the other is not, I can't see how it would work either. Can you?`

For Objectivism, suppose a person seriously tries to LIVE according to its doctrine, will deeply affect every part of his/her life.

Being an Objectivist means accepting as absolutes the alleged "objective values" presented in the doctrine. If the partner does not share them, he/she will be accused of being in error. This is going to lead to major conflict imo.

It simply depends on what kind of Objectivist he is. Bad is bad. Good is good. The problem is there are a lot of bad running around so the odds of a bad relationship when any two Objectivists get together are much higher than with only one. Generally the bad goes to good with a little more maturity and life experience.

"Being an Objectivist means accepting as absolutes the alleged 'objective values' presented in the doctrine"? Not by me. Beyond the basic basics "objective values" are too hard to ID. Knowledge is too often tentative. You get the equivocation of the "ethics of emergencies" to grease the wheels. Or some such: Then you get hit by the Objectivist version of original sin and feel you're inadequate and feel guilty but keep up the good show regardless as you lie your way through to the necessary existential integrity for social reasons. You may even adopt Randian hero postures, but that was much more common in the 1960s. You might as well stand up in church, wave your arms and jump about and scream, "I've been saved!"

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> . . . Then you get hit by the Objectivist version of original sin and feel you're inadequate and feel guilty but keep up the good show regardless as you lie your way through to the necessary existential integrity for social reasons. . .

Just for the record, Brant's species of "Bizarro Objectivism" bears no relation to nothing that I've personally lived. I've never had to do any of this. In fact, to the extent I've been perceptive enough to grasp and live by proper philosophy, I've always benefited.

I've never lied my way thru to anything.

Never felt original sin, religious or secular.

Never accepted something on authority just because Rand said so.

Never had to compromise my integrity.

None of it. Total, bizarro bullshit.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> . . . Then you get hit by the Objectivist version of original sin and feel you're inadequate and feel guilty but keep up the good show regardless as you lie your way through to the necessary existential integrity for social reasons. . .

Just for the record, Brant's species of "Bizarro Objectivism" bears no relation to nothing that I've personally lived. I've never had to do any of this. In fact, to the extent I've been perceptive enough to grasp and live by proper philosophy, I've always benefited.

I've never lied my way thru to anything.

Never felt original sin, religious or secular.

Never accepted something on authority just because Rand said so.

Never had to compromise my integrity.

None of it. Total, bizarro bullshit.

And what made you think I was talking about you?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're talking to all of us on a list, so we can all respond.

Philip -

Of course, anyone on the list can respond. But it might not be sensible for a given reader to presume that each and every particular bizarro thought discussed amounts to the poster talking about that given reader.

Regards,

Bill P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, I don't want to beat a minor point to death, but Brant started his post speaking about Objectivists not just himself, then he said 'you' a number of times. So it's quite reasonable to suspect generalization and point out that it's not true of all of us. And to condemn what seemed to be an implication that Objectivism is too hard or unreal or can't be practiced fully.

And even if he had said 'in my case', it would be relevant to expand on or to make a very related point on the subject - and report to you that my case differs.

Especially since one of the common criticisms of Oism is that it is too lofty, too difficult, can't be fully implemented on this earth.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're talking to all of us on a list, so we can all respond.

No. I was referring to "bad" Objectivists. I also mentioned "good" Objectivists. "You" did not refer to the latter. "You" referred to some consequential mistakes of too much absolutism.

My posts are short but not so short they can't be read for comprehension with a little thinking.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Also this is not the first post where Brant has made general statements about the unworkability of Objectivism, the idea you can't fully be an Oist and succeed in life or can't fully practice it.

He said this earlier on this thread: "Generally speaking an Objectivist should not be romantically involved with another Objectivist so they can keep the relationship sane."

(I suspect these are some of the reasons he has told us he is not an Oist: he doesn't think it works on this earth.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Also this is not the first post where Brant has made general statements about the unworkability of Objectivism, the idea you can't fully be an Oist and succeed in life or can't fully practice it.

He said this earlier on this thread: "Generally speaking an Objectivist should not be romantically involved with another Objectivist so they can keep the relationship sane."

(I suspect these are some of the reasons he has told us he is not an Oist: he doesn't think it works on this earth.)

That's food for thought. Get started.

--Brant

Objectivist

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: Criticisms of Objectivism

Independent of Brant or this thread, the issue

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

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

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

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

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

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now