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

[Selene]

I certainly think she was better as a person than your criticisms imply. Take the tunnel disaster. Was it really the people on the train or the ideas on the train she was after?

Imo whom Rand was after was the people as the believers in the ideas she disapproved of. All her ideological "enemies", often called simply "they": the "looters", "altruists", "moochers" or whatever odd words she pulled out of her language drawer to label people whose values differed from her own.

The scene in the tunnel where they perish is a both gloating and primitive judgement day fantasy put in writing, in which those whose values are different from Ayn Rand's get what they deserve.

Ahh, so now Ayn Rand was a Calvinist.

Adam

[Dragonfly]

Why do most critics think the greatest novel of the 20th Century is Ulysses?

The Ulysses fans (no, I'm not one of them) will probably ask you whether you read it carefully enough (ehm... did you read it at all?)

I gave you facts about Dagny and Hank's empathy and kindness. You can't just ignore what I said and sweep it aside to go on to another subject of point of attack.

That's funny, we gave you examples of the cardboard characters in AS, the childish action scenes at the end etc., and you sweep them aside to concentrate on a few scenes with empathy, so your reproach is of the pot-kettle type. If you want to use the facts, you cannot just pick only those you like. It's probably a fact that Hitler was nice to his dog and friendly with children, so he must have been a nice man, QED, right? If you want to judge the qualities of a novel, you cannot focus only on the better parts and ignore everything that is not so good, you'll have to consider the total of all factors. As I said before, when I was young I thought the balance was positive. Now it has become definitely negative to me.

It is possible to -misread- Atlas Shrugged, to drop context, to not read it carefully enough, or to read it in a second language so that you and Xray miss a lot.

As I've said several times on this forum, I've read AS about a dozen times, in English, and I know it probably better than most Objectivists.

First, Jesus Christ what a ridiculous exaggeration!! that's not accurate for two reasons: a/ Most people don't die even in a famine or drought, even in the third world. They had been surviving (unpleasantly) in the "people's states" for years before the start of the novel and did in Cambodia, China under Mao, etc. They eat roots, ration food, spend zero money, shiver in patched clothes, kill their cattle or hunt squirrels, etc. Plus there is black market smuggling and trade, even with heavy-handed government. b/ the time involved is short - they are preparing to come back now that the government has collapsed as the novel ends and Galt says they are going back to the earth. They will be able to rebuild the railroads, use Rearden metal, use Galt's motor, start new businesses and transportation much faster than the fumbling bureaucrats wou/d. So in fact, very few will actually die.

That most people don't die in a famine or drought doesn't imply that not many people will die. Even a "small" minority worldwide can amount to billions of people. The description in AS is quite suggestive:

there was only a void of darkness and rock, but the darkness was hiding the ruins of a continent: the roofless homes, the rusting tractors, the lightless streets, the abandoned rail

Darkness → no electricity, rusting tractors → no agriculture → no food, roofless homes, abandoned rail → no industry, no means of survival for most people. This can only mean that at least millions of people will have died who otherwise would be alive. A truth that is a bit too easily ignored by most Objectivists.

Second, and much more important, same question as I asked Xray about Rearden's response. What's the alternative? Accept enslavement of the entire planet because your rebellion will result in death? "Oh gee, I guess I have to surrender all my wealth and property and be a slave because I'm an altruist and don't want people hurt?"

1.) First the situation is of course in practice completely impossible, you cannot destroy the world by picking a few innovators and let them go on strike. So from a viewpoint of realism the whole question is moot.

2.) But if we accept Rand's story, no matter how impossible, then we see here the ugly side of Objectivism, this is equivalent to the situation where an Objectivist drives along a lonely road and see the victim of an accident lying on the roadside, bleeding to death if he's not helped quickly. The Objectivist drives on, because he feels he doesn't have an obligation to save that man's life as he doesn't know him. Perhaps that's even a statist! What is the alternative? To let him live so that he may contribute to my enslavement? No wonder that Objectivists are so keen on nuking dictatorships, according to many of them there exist no innocent victims in such countries, so they don't have to care about such hypothetical entities. It's an example of a false dichotomy: either they all die or I will be enslaved. A simplistic world view.

> the way Dagny indifferently killed a guard who couldn't make up his mind

That's not what happened. He was possibly about to blow the whole operation but would not surrender, they could have apprehended and killed. Time is of the essence in a guerrilla invasion. If you can't disarm, someone can and will sound the alarm.

That is the usual Objectivist excuse. It's completely false. To get a good idea, here is the scene:

Dagny walked straight toward the guard who stood at the door of "Project F". Her steps sounded pourposeful, even and open, rining in the silence of the path among the trees. She raised her head to a ra of moonlight, to let him recognize her face.

"Let me in," she said.

"No admittance," he answered in the voice of a robot. "By order or Dr. Ferris."

"I am here by order of Mr. Thompson."

"Huh? . . . I . . . I don't know anything about that."

"I do."

"I mean, Dr. Ferris hasn't told me . . . ma'am."

"I am telling you."

"But I'm not supposed to take any orders from anyone excepting Dr. Ferris."

"Do you wish to disobey Mr. Thompson?"

"Oh, no, ma'am! But . . . but if Dr. Ferris said to let nobody in, that means nobody-" He added uncertainly and pleadingly, "-doesn't it?"

"Do you know that my name is Dagny Taggart and that you've seen my pictures in the papers with Mr. Thompson and all the top leaders of the country?"

"Yes, ma'am."

"Then decide whether you wish to disobey their orders."

"Oh, no, ma'am! I don't!"

"Then let me in."

"But I can't disobey Dr. Ferris, either!"

"Then choose."

"But I can't choose ma'am! Who am I to choose?"

"You'll have to."

"Look," he said hastily, pulling a key from his pocket and turning to the door, "I'll ask the chief. He-"

"No." she said.

Some quality in the tone of her voice made him whirl back to her: she was holding a gun pointed levelly at his heart.

"Listen carefully," she said. "Either you let me in or I shoot you.

You may try to shoot me first, if you can. You have that choice—and no other. Now decide."

His mouth fell open and the key dropped from his hand.

"Get out of my way," she said.

He shook his head frantically, pressing his back against the door.

"Oh Christ, ma'am!" he gulped in the whine of a desperate plea. "I can't shoot at you, seeing as you come from Mr. Thompson! And I can't let you in against the word of Dr. Ferris! What am I to do? I'm only a little fellow! I'm only obeying orders! It's not up to me!"

"It's your life." she said.

"If you let me ask the chief, he'll tell me, he'll—"

"I won't let you ask anyone."

"But how do I know that you really have an order from Mr. Thompson?"

"You don't. Maybe I haven't. Maybe I'm acting on my own—and you'll be punished for obeying me. Maybe I have—and you'll be thrown in jail for disobeying. Maybe Dr. Ferris and Mr. Thompson agree about this. Maybe they don't—and you have to defy one or the other. These are the things you have to decide. There is no one to ask, no one to call, no one to tell you. You will have to decide them yourself."

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

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

"But I can't decide! I'm not supposed to decide!"

"I'll count to three," she said. "Then I’ll shoot."

"Wait! Wait! I haven't said yes or no!" he cried, cringing tighter against the door, as if immobility of mind and body were his best protection, "One—" she counted; she could see his eyes staring at her in terror —"Two—" she could see that the gun held less terror for him than the alternative she offered—"Three."

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.

"Time is of essence". Yeah sure... that's why Dagny is holding a discussion of more than a page with the guard. It took me more than two minutes to read this dialogue aloud! So the argument that this is an "action" scene in which "time is of essence" is completely false. This is a typical reaction of Objectivists when that scene is discussed and it shows that they don't understand how Rand writes (or they do know but prefer to ignore that knowledge when it is less palatable). In AS almost everything has a meaning that reflects Rand's philosophy and is not merely a thrilling story. Don't forget that Rand is no naturalist and that every scene is set with a purpose. So the guard here is not accidentally barring the rescue of Galt. In that case Rand would have let d'Anconia with one movement of his hand disable the guard, without killing him. No, 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. The endless dialogue between Dagny and the guard is in effect screaming that message and you must be quite deaf not to hear it. But most Objectivists chose to ignore that message, probably while they're not comfortable with it, and try to reshape the scene as a "mere" action scene where the guard is barring access to Galt. They're kidding themselves, it was no idle saying when Rand said "and I mean it!". Yes folks, she really did mean it.

> the absence of children

So what? In a novel about the fight between adults over economics and government that's already long enough, what purpose would mandate include tykes? Do you have some genius eight year old in mind who invents a new metal?

They don't have to play a significant role, but the fact that none of the heroes has any children gets with Rand in AS a philosophical significance. And why should they be eight year old geniuses who invent new alloys? Another example that in AS practically everybody has to be either a hero or a villain.

[Brant Gaede]

I certainly think she was better as a person than your criticisms imply. Take the tunnel disaster. Was it really the people on the train or the ideas on the train she was after?

Imo whom Rand was after was the people as the believers in the ideas she disapproved of. All her ideological "enemies", often called simply "they": the "looters", "altruists", "moochers" or whatever odd words she pulled out of her language drawer to label people whose values differed from her own.

The scene in the tunnel where they perish is a both gloating and primitive judgement day fantasy put in writing, in which those whose values are different from Ayn Rand's get what they deserve.

And why do they deserve it? Something to do with the nature of reality and the nature of people and the nature of ideas all coming together. It wasn't the collectivists who got off that train. Not those who advocated altruism (for others).

--Brant

[Dragonfly]

I'm still waiting for a response from the people...

My dear Phil,

Replying to your posts does take time, especially as I'm not the type who thinks that only "funny" one-liners are expected. I don't always have that time, so sometimes you'll have to wait a few days. I hope you can exercise a little patience. Don't forget you are here not a teacher in a classroom.

Remember that Hsieh woman? Who wrote a huge rant against Sciabarra. The same day she and/or her acolytes were crowing on her site that ha ha, no one had answered that, as if it would be possible to write a good reply to such an enormous amount of text within a few hours. Later you came with a thorough reply (one of the best things you did, btw), shredding that rant to pieces, but IIRC that took you also many days if not more. So please no more stamping with your foot if you don't get immediately an answer.

[Brant Gaede]

DF,

When Nathaniel and Barbara Branden at the height of their Objectivism by the lights of Ayn Rand were driving in Los Angeles they came upon an hysterical woman who had run out into the street. There was a man inside the house who needed immediate medical attention and they did what they could to help. Barbara mentioned this either in her efficient thinking course, a guest lecture in NB's BPO course or in both to illustrate the irrationality of giving in to hysteria during an emergency. There was no bs or thinking going on in their minds about helping or not helping out in that situation; that's for stupid idiots who gloom onto the philosophy really thinking and understanding nothing trying to swallow it whole in one big gulp. They are also probably quite young.

The guard scene: In real life he would have simply been shot out of hand and all or most of the guards inside killed outright with no one saying "Put 'em up!" Rand actually softened the whole thing up. It was also a closing of a circle for her. At the end of We The Living the guard kills the heroine. At the end of Atlas Shrugged the heroine kills the guard. That guard actually represents all the mindless, murderous bastards AR left behind in Soviet Russia. Conventionally the bad guy goes for his gun and gets killed. Rand wanted to illustrate the idea thing.

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.

--Brant

Edited October 28, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Xray]

Ms. Xray:

I asked you the questions.

Your not answering the questions that I asked you.

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

You regurgitating Rand quotes is not answering the questions as to what is depravity, etc.

If you are self conscious about taking a personal position, I am fine with that. Just refuse to answer.

If you were an American you would have your 5th and 14th amendment rights to assert.

I await, patiently, for your answers.

Adam

Mr. Selene:

My # 185 wasn't "regurgitating Rand quotes", it was connecting "depravity" to what is said about it in the novel. For THIS is our source: the text.

If you were an American you would have your 5th and 14th amendment rights to assert.

Oh, I see you are trying out a new role now, Mr. Selene. Got bored with playing Bogart and switched to Bugliosi now, playing the prosecutor telling me I have "the right to remain silent"?

Let's look again at your questions:

So your point is that he was a "depraved man" because he was "a non-Randian"? I am completely confused now.

Was he still "depraved", in your opinion, when he and Dagny made love?

Was he ever non-depraved?

If you are self conscious about taking a personal position, I am fine with that. Just refuse to answer.

It sticks out mile where you want to take this, Mr. Selene. You are always so ... well, 'subtle'.

You want me to give some "moral judgement" regarding "depravity", then reply by "All values are subjective". Right?

Indeed they are.

I can tell you why I personally don't find Rearden's character appealing at all. In fact I have done so in past posts, so there's no real need to repeat it here.

Edited October 28, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Ms. Xray:

I asked you the questions.

Your not answering the questions that I asked you.

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

You regurgitating Rand quotes is not answering the questions as to what is depravity, etc.

If you are self conscious about taking a personal position, I am fine with that. Just refuse to answer.

If you were an American you would have your 5th and 14th amendment rights to assert.

I await, patiently, for your answers.

Adam

Mr. Selene:

My # 185 wasn't "regurgitating Rand quotes", it was connecting "depravity" to what is said about it in the novel. For THIS is our source: the text.

If you were an American you would have your 5th and 14th amendment rights to assert.

Oh, I see you are trying out a new role now, Mr. Selene. Got bored with playing Bogart and switched to Bugliosi now, playing the prosecutor telling me I have "the right to remain silent"?

Let's look again at your questions:

So your point is that he was a "depraved man" because he was "a non-Randian"? I am completely confused now.

Was he still "depraved", in your opinion, when he and Dagny made love?

Was he ever non-depraved?

If you are self conscious about taking a personal position, I am fine with that. Just refuse to answer.

It sticks out mile where you want to take this, Mr. Selene. You are always so ... well, 'subtle'.

You want me to give some "moral judgement" regarding "depravity", then reply by "All values are subjective". Right?

Indeed they are.

I can tell you why I personally don't find Rearden's character appealing at all. In fact have I done so in past posts, so there's no real need to repeat it here.

You're becoming unglued. Are you upset?

Essentially, you are refusing to answer a series of questions directly.

I'm fine with that.

Adam

Edited October 28, 2009 by Selene

[Xray]

the absence of children (sure, if you look good enough you'll find a few children as a token, but the fact that most people don't remember them is significant, and as far as I can remember none of the heroes has children - flashbacks of the heroes in their youth are not a substitute)

Of the two little bothers livng in Galt's Gulch it is said:

... they looked as if, should they ever encounter malevolence, they would reject it contemptuously, not as dangerous but as stupid, they would not accept it in bruised resignation as the law of existence. (p. 785)

Imo this unrealism reveals a good deal of psychological ignorance. For malevolence can be very dangerous and it might be fatal to ignore this by not being prepared for what could happen in situations where merely "rejecting it contemptuously as stupid" would be of no help at all.

Edited October 28, 2009 by Xray

[Philip Coates]

> please no more stamping with your foot if you don't get immediately an answer.

DF, good point. And looking back at it, it was only one day -- too soon to assume no response was coming.

I apologize. I sometimes get too irritable or impatient.

Again, it's just because I'm an evil person.

[Xray]

Are you upset?

Not at all. Why should I be upset?

[Philip Coates]

> 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?

> "Time is of essence". Yeah sure... that's why Dagny is holding a discussion of more than a page with the guard.

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.

> 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.] 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. Again you take it too literally. Her point is similar to the one about the guard: those who live by irrational ideas, who try to rule others, who abdicate thinking, etc. are often the causes of enormous harm -- the deaths in Atlas are entirely their responsibility, not the strikers who are trying to topple a corrupt system! -- but they are causes of harm to themselves. That's a wider point in Oism -- irrationality is not in your own interest. And making the roof collapse over their heads from this in the short run, is brilliant novelistically and literarily.

Note this point, DF and others: One of Rand's great skills is her ability to dramatize complex or abstract philosophical points by setting up situations where the impact of bad principles is foreshortened and the roof comes crashing down faster than it would in the more 'naturalistic' novels.

> The endless dialogue between Dagny and the guard is in effect screaming that message and you must be quite deaf not to hear it.

No, you miss the point: the dialogue is gradually escalating and she is narrowing the circle. It's not literally repetition, but an exploration of every alternative. Briefly done - it's like a whole exploation of an -excuse making mind- that you see in the world around you...but done in a single exchange. Brilliant! Now, from a point of literal realism, almost no human being would be that obstinate, 90 percent of guards would drop the gun and run. But Rand is making a stylized point. DF, like the obstinate guard, you keep refusing to allow Rand to write literature in her way, to tell her kind of story, to make her kind of point. Bang, you're dead. :-)

> the fact that none of the heroes has any children gets with Rand in AS a philosophical significance.

She was asked that and said she had no such purpose. She made the very same point I did.

> First the situation is of course in practice completely impossible, you cannot destroy the world by picking a few innovators and let them go on strike.

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.

> The Objectivist drives on, because he feels he doesn't have an obligation to save that man's life [bleeding on the side of the road] as he doesn't know him.

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.

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.)

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

Edited October 28, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Selene]

the absence of children (sure, if you look good enough you'll find a few children as a token, but the fact that most people don't remember them is significant, and as far as I can remember none of the heroes has children - flashbacks of the heroes in their youth are not a substitute)

Of the two little bothers livng in Galt's Gulch it is said:

... they looked as if, should they ever encounter malevolence, they would reject it contemptuously, not as dangerous but as stupid, they would not accept it in bruised resignation as the law of existence. (p. 785)

Imo this unrealism reveals a good deal of psychological ignorance. For malevolence can be very dangerous and it might be fatal to ignore this by not being prepared for what could happen in situations where merely "rejecting it contemptuously as stupid" would be of no help at all.

I had a little bother, but he was an only bother, so I had noone to talk to.

Adam

Edited October 28, 2009 by Selene

[Jonathan]

On a previous thread, we've discussed in detail the scene in which Dagny lectures and then shoots the guard:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5075&st=0

I think several people here, and especially Phil, might benefit from reading it.

J

[Philip Coates]

This is not peer-reviewed professional scholarship, nor are we in grad school. Discussion on one thread does not require mastery of every other or sifting through in hopes of finding the occasional nugget among the chaff that usually is posted.

We have already had a -very- substantive and very complete discussion of this issue right here. There is really nothing more to be said on "the guard issue" than the points Brant and I have made.

Points proved. Case closed.

Edited October 28, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Selene]

This is not peer-reviewed professional scholarship, nor are we in grad school. Discussion on one thread does not require mastery of every other or sifting through in hopes of finding the occasional nugget among the chaff that usually is posted.

We have already had a -very- substantive and very complete discussion of this issue right here. There is really nothing more to be said on "the guard issue" than the points Brant and I have made.

Points proved. Case closed.

Pomposity is back in the saddle!

I like tall targets, much easier to hit.

Adam

[Jonathan]

This is not peer-reviewed professional scholarship, nor are we in grad school. Discussion on one thread does not require mastery of every other or sifting through in hopes of finding the occasional nugget among the chaff that usually is posted.

I've haven't suggested that mastery of every other thread was a requirement, but was just pointing out that we've had the same discussion in the past, and that you might benefit from reading perspectives that you hadn't considered before.

We have already had a -very- substantive and very complete discussion of this issue right here. There is really nothing more to be said on "the guard issue" than the points Brant and I have made.

Points proved. Case closed.

Your points had already been addressed on the previous thread prior to your making them on this thread.

Here are my posts from that thread which contain arguments that you haven't addressed:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5075&view=findpost&p=42928

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5075&view=findpost&p=42936

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5075&view=findpost&p=43010

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5075&view=findpost&p=43028

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5075&view=findpost&p=43259

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5075&view=findpost&p=43376

And others contributed substantive content that you hadn't thought of as well.

Speaking of substantive content that hadn't occurred to you, and arguments that you haven't addressed, you never responded to this post of mine about Howard Roark and initiation of force (after being quite pompous and smug about how much better you understand Rand's concept of initiation of force than others do):

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7434&view=findpost&p=76857

Care to reply now?

J

[Xray]

I had a little bother, but he was an only bother, so I had noone to talk to.

Lol - good one! The joke's on me, but let' just assume it was a slip-up typo on my part (it looks like something about those two Galt Gulch brothers really 'bothered' me).

Edited October 29, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

I had a little bother, but he was an only bother, so I had noone to talk to.

Lol - good one! The joke's on me, but let' just assume it was a slip-up typo on my part (it looks like something about those two Galt Gulch brothers really 'bothered' me).

Would it be that they were joyously aware of themselves and they were being raised by loving parents and they had no physical wants?

Is it the promise of pure joy that bothered you about the brothers? Somehow, you mean something else...yes.

Adam

SPORTS UPDATE: TOP OF THE FIRST PHILS 0 YANKS COMING TO BAT - KARMA IS PROPER

Edited October 29, 2009 by Selene

[Xray]

That's a wider point in Oism -- irrationality is not in your own interest. And making the roof collapse over their heads from this in the short run, is brilliant novelistically and literarily.

Bottom line: those whose ideas were subjectively judged by Rand as "irrational" are the "enemies of reason".

Phil: has it ever occured to you that Rand arbitrarily called 'rational' what she subjectively preferred?

Note this point, DF and others: One of Rand's great skills is her ability to dramatize complex or abstract philosophical points by setting up situations where the impact of bad principles is foreshortened and the roof comes crashing down faster than it would in the more 'naturalistic' novels.

In short, "the bad guys get what they deserve". Indeed, Rand's novels are far closer to black-and-white fairy-tale thinking than they are to more naturalistic novels.

Edited October 29, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

That's a wider point in Oism -- irrationality is not in your own interest. And making the roof collapse over their heads from this in the short run, is brilliant novelistically and literarily.

Bottom line: those whose ideas were subjectively judged by Rand as "irrational" are the "enemies of reason".

Phil: has it ever occured to you that Rand arbitrarily called 'rational' what she subjectively preferred?

Note this point, DF and others: One of Rand's great skills is her ability to dramatize complex or abstract philosophical points by setting up situations where the impact of bad principles is foreshortened and the roof comes crashing down faster than it would in the more 'naturalistic' novels.

In short, "the bad guys get what they deserve". Indeed, Rand's novels are far closer to black-and-white fairy-tale thinking than they are to more naturalistic novels.

Hitler and Stalin get what they deserve. Too black and white. Not real life.

Instead of worrying about Rand's rationality worry about your own. That's her deeper message.

--Brant

[Xray]

Why do most critics think the greatest novel of the 20th Century is Ulysses?

The Ulysses fans (no, I'm not one of them) will probably ask you whether you read it carefully enough (ehm... did you read it at all?)

I gave you facts about Dagny and Hank's empathy and kindness. You can't just ignore what I said and sweep it aside to go on to another subject of point of attack.

That's funny, we gave you examples of the cardboard characters in AS, the childish action scenes at the end etc., and you sweep them aside to concentrate on a few scenes with empathy, so your reproach is of the pot-kettle type. If you want to use the facts, you cannot just pick only those you like. It's probably a fact that Hitler was nice to his dog and friendly with children, so he must have been a nice man, QED, right? If you want to judge the qualities of a novel, you cannot focus only on the better parts and ignore everything that is not so good, you'll have to consider the total of all factors. As I said before, when I was young I thought the balance was positive. Now it has become definitely negative to me.

It is possible to -misread- Atlas Shrugged, to drop context, to not read it carefully enough, or to read it in a second language so that you and Xray miss a lot.

As I've said several times on this forum, I've read AS about a dozen times, in English, and I know it probably better than most Objectivists.

First, Jesus Christ what a ridiculous exaggeration!! that's not accurate for two reasons: a/ Most people don't die even in a famine or drought, even in the third world. They had been surviving (unpleasantly) in the "people's states" for years before the start of the novel and did in Cambodia, China under Mao, etc. They eat roots, ration food, spend zero money, shiver in patched clothes, kill their cattle or hunt squirrels, etc. Plus there is black market smuggling and trade, even with heavy-handed government. b/ the time involved is short - they are preparing to come back now that the government has collapsed as the novel ends and Galt says they are going back to the earth. They will be able to rebuild the railroads, use Rearden metal, use Galt's motor, start new businesses and transportation much faster than the fumbling bureaucrats wou/d. So in fact, very few will actually die.

That most people don't die in a famine or drought doesn't imply that not many people will die. Even a "small" minority worldwide can amount to billions of people. The description in AS is quite suggestive:

there was only a void of darkness and rock, but the darkness was hiding the ruins of a continent: the roofless homes, the rusting tractors, the lightless streets, the abandoned rail

Darkness → no electricity, rusting tractors → no agriculture → no food, roofless homes, abandoned rail → no industry, no means of survival for most people. This can only mean that at least millions of people will have died who otherwise would be alive. A truth that is a bit too easily ignored by most Objectivists.

Second, and much more important, same question as I asked Xray about Rearden's response. What's the alternative? Accept enslavement of the entire planet because your rebellion will result in death? "Oh gee, I guess I have to surrender all my wealth and property and be a slave because I'm an altruist and don't want people hurt?"

1.) First the situation is of course in practice completely impossible, you cannot destroy the world by picking a few innovators and let them go on strike. So from a viewpoint of realism the whole question is moot.

2.) But if we accept Rand's story, no matter how impossible, then we see here the ugly side of Objectivism, this is equivalent to the situation where an Objectivist drives along a lonely road and see the victim of an accident lying on the roadside, bleeding to death if he's not helped quickly. The Objectivist drives on, because he feels he doesn't have an obligation to save that man's life as he doesn't know him. Perhaps that's even a statist! What is the alternative? To let him live so that he may contribute to my enslavement? No wonder that Objectivists are so keen on nuking dictatorships, according to many of them there exist no innocent victims in such countries, so they don't have to care about such hypothetical entities. It's an example of a false dichotomy: either they all die or I will be enslaved. A simplistic world view.

> the way Dagny indifferently killed a guard who couldn't make up his mind

That's not what happened. He was possibly about to blow the whole operation but would not surrender, they could have apprehended and killed. Time is of the essence in a guerrilla invasion. If you can't disarm, someone can and will sound the alarm.

That is the usual Objectivist excuse. It's completely false. To get a good idea, here is the scene:

Dagny walked straight toward the guard who stood at the door of "Project F". Her steps sounded pourposeful, even and open, rining in the silence of the path among the trees. She raised her head to a ra of moonlight, to let him recognize her face.

"Let me in," she said.

"No admittance," he answered in the voice of a robot. "By order or Dr. Ferris."

"I am here by order of Mr. Thompson."

"Huh? . . . I . . . I don't know anything about that."

"I do."

"I mean, Dr. Ferris hasn't told me . . . ma'am."

"I am telling you."

"But I'm not supposed to take any orders from anyone excepting Dr. Ferris."

"Do you wish to disobey Mr. Thompson?"

"Oh, no, ma'am! But . . . but if Dr. Ferris said to let nobody in, that means nobody-" He added uncertainly and pleadingly, "-doesn't it?"

"Do you know that my name is Dagny Taggart and that you've seen my pictures in the papers with Mr. Thompson and all the top leaders of the country?"

"Yes, ma'am."

"Then decide whether you wish to disobey their orders."

"Oh, no, ma'am! I don't!"

"Then let me in."

"But I can't disobey Dr. Ferris, either!"

"Then choose."

"But I can't choose ma'am! Who am I to choose?"

"You'll have to."

"Look," he said hastily, pulling a key from his pocket and turning to the door, "I'll ask the chief. He-"

"No." she said.

Some quality in the tone of her voice made him whirl back to her: she was holding a gun pointed levelly at his heart.

"Listen carefully," she said. "Either you let me in or I shoot you.

You may try to shoot me first, if you can. You have that choice—and no other. Now decide."

His mouth fell open and the key dropped from his hand.

"Get out of my way," she said.

He shook his head frantically, pressing his back against the door.

"Oh Christ, ma'am!" he gulped in the whine of a desperate plea. "I can't shoot at you, seeing as you come from Mr. Thompson! And I can't let you in against the word of Dr. Ferris! What am I to do? I'm only a little fellow! I'm only obeying orders! It's not up to me!"

"It's your life." she said.

"If you let me ask the chief, he'll tell me, he'll—"

"I won't let you ask anyone."

"But how do I know that you really have an order from Mr. Thompson?"

"You don't. Maybe I haven't. Maybe I'm acting on my own—and you'll be punished for obeying me. Maybe I have—and you'll be thrown in jail for disobeying. Maybe Dr. Ferris and Mr. Thompson agree about this. Maybe they don't—and you have to defy one or the other. These are the things you have to decide. There is no one to ask, no one to call, no one to tell you. You will have to decide them yourself."

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

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

"But I can't decide! I'm not supposed to decide!"

"I'll count to three," she said. "Then I’ll shoot."

"Wait! Wait! I haven't said yes or no!" he cried, cringing tighter against the door, as if immobility of mind and body were his best protection, "One—" she counted; she could see his eyes staring at her in terror —"Two—" she could see that the gun held less terror for him than the alternative she offered—"Three."

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.

"Time is of essence". Yeah sure... that's why Dagny is holding a discussion of more than a page with the guard. It took me more than two minutes to read this dialogue aloud! So the argument that this is an "action" scene in which "time is of essence" is completely false. This is a typical reaction of Objectivists when that scene is discussed and it shows that they don't understand how Rand writes (or they do know but prefer to ignore that knowledge when it is less palatable). In AS almost everything has a meaning that reflects Rand's philosophy and is not merely a thrilling story. Don't forget that Rand is no naturalist and that every scene is set with a purpose. So the guard here is not accidentally barring the rescue of Galt. In that case Rand would have let d'Anconia with one movement of his hand disable the guard, without killing him. No, 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. The endless dialogue between Dagny and the guard is in effect screaming that message and you must be quite deaf not to hear it. But most Objectivists chose to ignore that message, probably while they're not comfortable with it, and try to reshape the scene as a "mere" action scene where the guard is barring access to Galt. They're kidding themselves, it was no idle saying when Rand said "and I mean it!". Yes folks, she really did mean it.

> the absence of children

So what? In a novel about the fight between adults over economics and government that's already long enough, what purpose would mandate include tykes? Do you have some genius eight year old in mind who invents a new metal?

They don't have to play a significant role, but the fact that none of the heroes has any children gets with Rand in AS a philosophical significance. And why should they be eight year old geniuses who invent new alloys? Another example that in AS practically everybody has to be either a hero or a villain.

Great post, DF.

Edited October 29, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Yes I thought you would like the clubbing of baby seals.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't see much of an issue. Dagny said go or I'll shoot. She even counted slowly to three and said that she would shoot on three.

The idiot didn't budge. I know I would have.

How about instead of calling Rand a monster, we call the guard a dumbass?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I don't see much of an issue. Dagny said go or I'll shoot. She even counted slowly to three and said that she would shoot on three.

The idiot didn't budge. I know I would have.

How about instead of calling Rand a monster, we call the guard a dumbass?

Michael

Oh, great! Now you're attacking his self-esteem!

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

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.

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.

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. But totally not use him as a model of social skills. That doesn't diminish his irreplaceable value. In Atlas, the characters need to be completely consumed by their productive careers for the story to work. And that serves as an enormous lesson to people who are not productive, not successful or hard working enough. But in real life, a person has to spend time learning about people, enjoying their company, having a circle of acquaintances and friends. One needs to travel and explore the world...etc.

And those are just a few examples.

Edited October 29, 2009 by Philip Coates