Or more to the point, What was Ayn Rand trying to say at the end of Atlas Shrugged, when she leaves Eddie Willers lying half dead on the railroad tracks while Dagny chats merrily with her friends in their new utopia, sparing nary a thought for her faithful supporter.
Wasn't she profiting from his loyalty, a loyalty he pledged to her out of his hopeless love for her? He wasn't free to choose not to love her, after all she was so fabulous, how could he not? I realize that it's not her fault either, or maybe in a technical sense not her responsibility, but she is is, I would argue, the recipient of something given up unwillingly, and either should not have accepted, or should have felt obliged to make it a fair exchange somehow, and to reward Eddie, perhaps by inviting him to Galt's gulch.
But no, Eddie would have been a drag on her there, lovesick as he was. So in Rand's opinion Dagny would have been wrong to allow him to spoil her perfect life (indeed it would be wrong for her to feel even a twinge of conscience about him). Or maybe for some technical reason that I have yet to discern, he doesn't belong there. I must stress that I have only read the book once, and that was two years ago, so maybe I am missing something.
You might argue that you can and must always be in complete rational control of your thoughts, and not allow emotions to influence your actions. Indeed it is true that we can't allow a person's emotional state to excuse his behavior. But what about the impact of emotion, specifically love, on what you value? I would argue that we cannot always choose rationally what we value, and therefore some of what we value is out of our control.
I mean honestly, can you really choose who you fall in love with, ALL the time?
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 1122 reads
****
I was thinking that maybe I should do a bit of research... So now I will set the record straight.
Here is Rand on compassion:
"I regard compassion as proper only toward those who are innocent victims, but not toward those who are morally guilty"
It appears that compassion does indeed have a place in Rand's ethics. Maybe it would even excuse someone from preferring a mentally disabled person over a gifted person. In any case, I mischaracterized Rand's opinion about compassion. My bad.
I still think Dagny demonstrates a weird lack of compassion toward Eddie, though.
I'm looking for where Rand says the thing you attribute to her. In the paragraph you quoted Rand stresses taxpayer dollars are being overwhelmingly spent on retarded children compared to gifted. Rand says nothing on the matter of whether it would be morally right to save one child over the other.
From what I know of objectivism, which isn't much, I gather it holds that in a perfectly rational being there is no difference between the objective and the subjective. I assume this because Rand held that romantic music was objectively the best, romantic art objectively the best. It was irrational to believe otherwise.
But as an artist and musician I know it's not as cut and dried as that. Would Rand say based on this line of reasoning you can determine the one objectively best piece of romantic music and work your way downward from that so as to rank objectively every piece of music? Would it be immoral to listen to something other than the one supreme composition? We can't be choosing a lesser value over a greater value.
If there are any objectivists on BTM who can weigh in on this, I'd love to get your thoughts.
I started reading the original post, but decided not to. I didn't want to spoil the ending. I am just about up to John Galt's speech. It is an incredible book that makes you think deeper about many subjects.
I know my post isn't relevant to the specific topic, but I wanted to comment on the book in general. There is one line that really stuck with me. (In part two, chapter 5"account overdrawn" Pg. 478 of the 50th anniversary addition) Francisco says to Dagny after she asks "who is John Galt?" , Francisco replies, " John Galt is Prometheus who changed his mind. After centuries of being torn by vultures in payment for having brought to men the fire of the gods, he broke his chains--and he withdrew his fire--until the day when men withdraw their vultures."
I know it is not relevant to the specific topic, but i just thought I'd share my favorite quote.(so far, I'm not finished it)
If you take into account the
0
If you take into account the totality of her philosophy, she appears to be saying, "Finite resources are being taken without people's consent and being spent to favor the least intelligent over the most intelligent."
She's against any sort of redistribution of wealth, and this sort which favors the weak over the strong is the hallmark of her philosophical enemies.
Since Rand's philosophy reveres reason above all other human qualities, I'm guessing she would say, "All other things being equal, whomever uses that faculty the most consistently will be most able to do things which affect human life (Rand's highest value) the most positively.
Though I've read all her books, I'm not an expert on objectivism. I apologize to anyone here who is if I've misrepresented Ayn's philosophy.
If you take into account the totality of her philosophy, she appears to be saying, "Finite resources are being taken without people's consent and being spent to favor the least intelligent over the most intelligent."
She's against any sort of redistribution of wealth, and this sort which favors the weak over the strong is the hallmark of her philosophical enemies.
Since Rand's philosophy reveres reason above all other human qualities, I'm guessing she would say, "All other things being equal, whomever uses that faculty the most consistently will be most able to do things which affect human life (Rand's highest value) the most positively.
Though I've read all her books, I'm not an expert on objectivism. I apologize to anyone here who is if I've misrepresented Ayn's philosophy.
This is the 5 part interview in one playlist.
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=AF050D1991CEB9E0
Watch all 5 parts of interview together in this player.
PROMOTE, Preserve, Protect and Defend The Constitution!
Check out my blog http://social.infowars.com/blog.php?user=SharpSteve
by Objectivism. I have read some Ayn Rand though none of the large classics.
I feel that there is a stubborness about her and her insistence on only the rational element of existence. She seems to be insisting that only the rational is valid - to the point of dogmatic thinking. For me, I don't think I'd enjoy reading a novelist who didn't incorporate the irrational as well. It seems like an intersting but limited perspective; one that corresponds to a wished for reality rather than a human reality. Perhaps this is related to her elevation of the romantic element in televesion. Did Rand consider herself a romantic?
> She seems to be insisting that only the rational is valid [...] For me, I don't think I'd enjoy reading a novelist who didn't incorporate the irrational as well.
i'm not sure what you're discussing here by "insisting that only the rational is valid". her philosophy or her novels?
over emotions, and strongly over belief - (I think belief to her, of any kind, is not really valid)
This comes up most blatantly in her discussion of religion as a psychological shortcoming - but her reasoning is consistent throughout.
I'm talking about her philosophy as it was expressed in the interview and her novels as well (what I've read of them, and what I've gleaned second hand from reviews, criticism, discussion)
It seemed to me that emotions are of lesser value than reason, and belief (which I consider supra-logical reasoning, reasoning plus a leap of faith) is a distorted product of faulty emotions in her system of thought.
You can see the instant shortcomings of her philosophy in her dealing with the crowd. She doesn't take the emotional state of some of the questioners into account. She considers only their rational statements. What it leads to is a total breakdown in the discussion and people turning against her. By her insisting on taking the statements only at a rational level (where they don't make the greatest sense) and to reply only on this level I think she's missing a grander element of human interaction. All the while I think she's insisting that communication be purely rational (when it seldom is).
This to me betrays a stubborn idealism (that reason is king) and would seem to lead to rancor, disdain, and perhaps misanthropy.
then you have a problem with the fact that she bases everything on rational reasoning? this sounds rather reasonable to me. i was under the impression that decisions based on emotions are the cause of disagreements and other problems.
> She considers only their rational statements. What it leads to is a total breakdown in the discussion and people turning against her.
people turning against her because she is right or wrong? she has only reason on her side. if you argue against reason then it's you who's wrong.
there is this one beautiful aspect about reason and logic that you will never find in emotions, it's consistent in a universal sense unlike emotions which are personal and vary from person to person.
your pitch for the more emotional reasoning is in fact guided by emotions and thus misguided.
> [...] taking the statements only at a rational level (where they don't make the greatest sense)
you kill your argument here as well. you insist that questions that don't make sense should be interpreted differently because only them will they be understood. this is bogus. you should not expect her to dismiss rational thought for the sake of discussion.
> All the while I think she's insisting that communication be purely rational (when it seldom is).
well. isn't that the problem though? that discussion seldom is purely rational. i think that that is something to strive for instead of condemn.
"this sounds rather reasonable to me. i was under the impression that decisions based on emotions are the cause of disagreements and other problems."
Perhaps that is why the breakdown occurred, because what I saw happen during the interview, was she got pissed off <(emotional breakdown) when the lady called her theory a "cult" and from that moment on Miss Rand went into an emotional tirade...which I find extremely ironic:) I think it is astonishing how she speaks of her philosophy as being the only reasonable way to live. Yet, she could not practice it in her own “reality”. She was not consistent and that is more than apparent in her love sick relationship with her boyfriend that left her for a younger woman.(Nathaniel Brennan) I think she was a very sad individual who was not ground in rational thought but had an ideal of life that even she could have never lived up to.
then you should consider her interaction with the questioners -
It almost immediately turns hostile.
She just doesn't come across as a socially advanced person to me. By that I mean one who is adaptable to different personalities and social situations. I think many writers are like that.
Anyhow, I'm not condemning anything. I'm not insisting on anything like a universal code of conduct or a method by which she should interact with her fans. Just making some observations. To me she comes across as a stubborn idealist who seems a little bitter. That's my observation and there's nothing to prove or disprove it. I think I've already told you why she came across that way to me.
Like many idealists, her ideas work better in a closed and controlled environment - like a book written in solitude - then they do in applicable life situations. Many writers admit to this. It is part of the desire that inspires them to create alternate literary realities, over which they have complete control.
It's good to strive for things and to try to be more reasonable....
i think that her demeanor is a result of her patience having ran out. she looks like she already knows what argument is coming her way before it's even fully articulated. which may be because she has had to refute it once too many times. you will notice her say that she's willing to debate a worthy adversary, which sounds like she thinks it is a waste of time for her to repeat herself while her audience doesn't pay attention anyway.
while you may think that it would be more productive to bite the bullet and repeat yourself one more time, i fully sympathize with her frustration.
of course our man RP is a stark opposite, wherein he always remains composed and patiently explains the obvious again and again. this may be viewed as better etiquette and i think we can all agree that it is more effective but different people have different fusses, and Rand's is much shorter, it appears.
> her ideas work better in a closed and controlled environment [...] then they do in applicable life situations
< i'm willing to bet a small amount of money that people who find themselves on the very top would be good examples of the philosophy she advocates. given that, it would follow that that kind of mentality is a requirement to being a winner. and it also follows that the majority of people are losing, as they're not living by the Rand mantra. there are you applicable life situations.
> It's good to strive for things and to try to be more reasonable....
< there's nothing wrong with being frustrated.
with the illiterate peasants!
Aren't the people at the top the ones who are obsessed with remaking the world into a controlled experiment?
Greenspan was a big fan/member of her inner circle and he's made a career out of tinkering with the currency along with a few other fellows behind closed doors. That either makes him an idealist (central planning really works great!) or an evil SOB (let's rob the peasants and starve them out - so that only the select few are left)
Rand strikes me as someone who, if given absolute power, would have some very different ideas about state intervention. -- just a hunch.
>>"Like many idealists, her ideas work better in a closed and controlled environment - like a book written in solitude - then they do in applicable life situations."
You're right. She is an idealist-- she would probably hate that characterization, but I think it's entirely appropriate. And Atlas Shrugged is indeed a closed and controlled environment. The characters, in my opinion, are not larger than life but from some weird alternate reality where not only economic transactions, but relationships too are based entirely on self-interest.
This would be fine were it not that many people seem to take from the book not only its political philosophy, which is brilliant, but also also advice on how to conduct their relationships. Like many people have pointed out on this thread, rights are all that matter on a political level. However, I hope I never see the day when it is considered ethical to abandon loyal friends once they have served their purpose and to ditch lovers as soon as somebody better comes along.
I completely agree that no one should ever be forced to help anyone else. What I disagree with is that you should only help people who can be of use to you, for example, that it is somehow immoral to choose give money to a less intelligent person rather than a more intelligent one. I think Rand even has a problem with charity in general. What kind of morality is that?
> However, I hope I never see the day when it is considered ethical to abandon loyal friends once they have served their purpose
< a few years back i have left (abandoned) my closest friends and family for a career opportunity which was of benefit only to me. was my action ethical or unethical ?
opportunist
but are you sure that you're leaving wasn't a benefit to them?
I just got off the phone with your family and they are quite happy indeed.
>>a few years back i have left (abandoned) my closest friends and family for a career opportunity which was of benefit only to me. was my action ethical or unethical ?
I don't know. Did you leave them dying on railway tracks? And if you had to leave them that way because it was impossible or too inconvenient for you to help them, did you just forget about them? (That is what Dagny does in Atlas Shrugged to her childhood friend and loyal supporter Eddie)
Kidding aside, I'm kind of in the same boat. I know it's hard when friends and family are far away. It's not too bad for me because I get to see them at least once a year, though... I hope you are enjoying your new career and your life in America.
I know another Canadian who was doing pretty well here, but his parents kept pressuring him to come back to Canada (they come from a less individualistic culture, was how he explained it), and he eventually caved in, giving up a rewarding career. I wouldn't have gone back... I know the decision was his responsibility ultimately, but I can't help thinking, shame on those parents.
> That is what Dagny does in Atlas Shrugged to her childhood friend and loyal supporter Eddie
< no!!! i just started reading the book!
> I hope you are enjoying your new career and your life in America. [...] I know another Canadian who was doing pretty well here
< hmmm... so you think i'm a Canadian living in America, eh?
I meant a Canadian other than myself :-) I pictured you being from somewhere like Ukraine. I'm probably way off, eh?
So sorry about the spoiler!!!! Let me know how you like the book.
Thanks for starting this thread, Claire! What fun to read thoughts and opinions from such sensitive and intelligent people, about one of my favorite novels of all time.
And thanks for the videos, Steve. What a treat! So great to see/hear her!
And here's some info all of you might find interesting...I'd like to recommend both of the two biographies of Ayn Rand. Both shed much light on this great and complex woman. One was written by her married lover, the famous psychologist, "Nathaniel Branden". The other was amazingly written by Mr. Brandon's wife, Barbara Branden, and is in some ways the more sympathetic version! Ayn considered herself so above the sway of even her own emotions, that she persuaded Nathaniel Branden to embark on an openly declared love affair with her. Both she and he were married at the time to other people. They simply brought their respective spouses into a meeting and announced their decision to become romantically involved with each other, as the logical course of action for two people so aligned philosophically. Recklessly heartless or just boldly open-minded? What do you all think? And this was, I believe, the early 1960's...
I believe knowing more about Ayn's personal life not only makes for a fascinating, inspiring (and at times disillusioning) read. It also helps in understanding the motivations and actions of her various characters, and the plots of her great novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. I also believe that reading about Ayn's life is a good idea for anyone who'd like to understand how her powerful philosophy was developed, grew into a nation-wide movement, a political party and then was sadly and swiftly mortally wounded. I don't want to spoil the story for those of you who might want to read about it in the books, but suffice it to say that human emotions are very real, very powerful and are best when properly acknowledged!
I understand Claire's feeling the actions of Dagny Taggert to be cold and unfeeling. I also don't think Ayn managed to be realistic in this scene as well as many others in her novels. Her characters tend to be more extreme and symbolic than real and human. After reading about Ayn's personal life, I have to conclude that the woman was probably trying to portray an archetype of the superwoman, always striving only for the best for herself, at any cost, even the life of a friend. Keep in mind that Rand believed that art should not reflect life, but a kind of "romanticized" version of how it ought to be, an exaggerated version, much like Plato's concept of the world of forms (though she interestingly claimed to abhor Plato, as one who did not adhere to logic). More on her theory of art and its specific purpose can be found in her book The Romantic Manifesto.
Great references to the Gnostic texts, Tom! Thank you. They, the Aghoris and the Sufis are my faves of the ancient mystics. I'm with Joseph Campbell (and you?) on the theory that these myths of the hero/heroine/soul/spirit etc, are somehow biologically encoded into our psyches to recreate ad infinitum. Though I'm almost certain, Ayn Rand would hate this pronouncement on her work, it does seem to follow for her as well. They are beautiful and timeless for this reason, too.
Ayn Rand was a brilliant genius. She was also flesh and blood. Apparently, even she was susceptible to some of the same human foibles that haunt the rest of us mortals. I'd like to quote another brilliant philosopher who I think might have been a great inspiration to Ayn Rand, though one perhaps more in touch with the mysteries of human emotion. Friedrich Nietzsche said in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, "There is always some madness in love. But there is always some reason in madness."
Peace, Love & Liberty,
Juliet Annerino
www.MySpace.com/JazKitten
Hello Juliet,
Ayn Rand, Joseph Campbell, the Gnostic Gospels - I don't think you can get this stuff on myspace! LOL! Bring your thinking cap when Claire posts. Its always well-researched and well-reasoned.
Hero with a Thousand Faces hit me like a thunderbolt. I do believe every human being is compelled to tell the story of the ressurecting savior godman and the lost and redeemed goddess. Freud says that it is all attributable to a shared memory of life in the womb (a previous life without a need for struggle, the fall into incarnation, etc). I'd love to think that it's more than that, but he makes a compelling case (I can't remember which book).
I agree with you that Ayn Rand would deny it vehemently, but a lot of her work follows the themes of the ancient mystery religions and their myths. SHe's rolling over in her grave! LOL!
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
Juliet, I suspect you are right when you say that Atlas Shrugged reflects Rand's fantasy about the kind of woman she wanted to be, but I was trying to be fair and to judge the story on its own merits, independently of the life of it's author.
I have also had thought about how these kinds of stories must emerge from some aspect of our nature. Perhaps Freud is right; once we exit the womb, life just is never as perfect, and we will always seek completion in another person. I will take issue with Tom, who would remove the distinction between real males and females and apply the same psychology across the board. Although the womb thing is common to both men and women, there is a reason why, in both the Gnostic story and A.S. the role of the seeker is filled by a woman, in my opinion. That has to do with evolutionarily based differences in the male vs the female mind, which can be boiled down to the fact that a woman has to be a lot pickier about with whom she will reproduce. Women invest a lot more time and effort into reproduction, etc... You know the story.
Commitment-wise, Dagny was holding out for the right guy. Many women over 30 can tell a similar story, of seeking a soulmate, and having to go through several relationships first, or of never finding the guy at all. It seems to me that as women gain more economic independence, we are holding out this hope for longer and longer, through our 30's (wasn't Dagny 35?) and into our 40's, sometimes to the detriment of our ability to start a family. Are we unrealistic? Yes. Humans are tragically, gloriously unrealistic. I think it's either what keeps us moving forward, or just a side effect of our big brains, or maybe both. On a side note, I wonder if all the women who in the past have had to "settle" for a just okay guy were really any less happy than modern women (with respect to love).
I once had a very spirited argument with a guy who maintained that romantic love was a recent "construct", and that there was no such thing before the French troubadours came along in the Middle Ages. I totally disagree. Pair bonding is as old as mammals, (even birds do it, so maybe dinosaurs did too). In humans this bonding expresses itself as romantic love. Of course the label "romantic" refers to a specific kind of art and literature which is indeed quite recent, but that is not what I am talking about. What I mean is this yearning for total identification, this idealization of the other person. I believe that is as old as we are as a species.
We also bond with others as friends, and the resulting alliances and social connections are vital to us as well, and there's also the parental instinct to bond with offspring, which must be the oldest kind of attachment.
Getting back to Atlas Shrugged, and Ayn Rand... I can't really put my finger on why, but I feel like Objectivist philosophy would seek to mess with this aspect of our nature-- the part that feels attachment. If we are constantly asking ourselves whether this or that person is of value to us, whether they are contributing to our happiness and fulfillment, if we shut ourselves off from feelings of empathy, and do not occasionally give in to our desire to be generous and kind to someone without first having to ascertain whether he is worthy of it, then we are engaging in behavior which is, I think, unnatural and destructive of happiness.
It could be that Rand experienced problems along those lines as a result of her philosophy, althoughif you look at the way she talks to Donahue about her recently deceased husband, she does seem to have been happily married at one time.
"I will take issue with Tom, who would remove the distinction between real males and females and apply the same psychology across the board. Although the womb thing is common to both men and women, there is a reason why, in both the Gnostic story and A.S. the role of the seeker is filled by a woman, in my opinion. That has to do with evolutionarily based differences in the male vs the female mind, which can be boiled down to the fact that a woman has to be a lot pickier about with whom she will reproduce. Women invest a lot more time and effort into reproduction, etc... You know the story."
No, Claire, this totally misses the point and the meaning of the divine feminine. You are thinking in material terms about a metaphor that is used to describe a spiritual reality. The soul and spirit are two parts of EVERY person. They are characterized as male and female merely for literary reasons. Trying to tie these concepts to biological/psychological phenomenon observable in male and female humans or animals is just not what the ancient writers intended. I am trying to come up with a different way of explaining it, as I have studied the ancient mysteries for many, many years now. I will get back to you. :)
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
this
I love this interview! I had seen it before, but I watched it again. Much as I enjoyed watching Rand, I also loved Donahue's questions and comments-- very entertaining.
The discussion of mentally disabled children was disturbing though-- Rand suggests that instead of spending money on programs for intellectually impaired kids, we should spend it on gifted kids because they are of greater value to us. I wonder if Rand would deem it immoral to save the less intelligent of two children from a burning building, all other things being equal. Personally, I think it would be immoral to base your decision on the child's intelligence.
Interesting, too, when in answer to one of Donahue's questions about heaven in the context of religious belief, she says that if she thought her recently deceased husband was in heaven she would commit suicide in order to be with him again... But I guess it wouldn't really be suicide if there were such a thing as heaven, because then you would still be alive.
I believe that she said that no public money should be spent on either disabled or gifted kids. She said that private charities could help disabled or gifted kids if their parents were poor, but that gifted kids probably would not need help, as their talent would allow them excel no matter what.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
I'm quoting Rand from the interview with Donahue:
"The newest proposals of having special millions spent on sub-normal children and on the handicapped (...) is the attempt to bring everybody on the level of the handicapped. And if it's merely an issue of a physical handicap, like a broken leg, which doesn't affect the mind, that would be a little more excusable; so I don't believe that such privileges should be granted to any group. But this includes the mentally retarded, which is the sub-normal, children who are unable to learn, so that at the end of spending thousands of millions of taxpayers money you are left with a half-idiot who may learn to read and write. May. on the other hand, there are no special schools, or very very few, for gifted children, and to pass up the gifted, on whom all our lives depend: if it weren't for intelligent people-- well, read Atlas Shrugged. What would happen to us without the better minds, who are able to survive and who carry the weight of everybody else? Yet we don't spend any money on them."
People applaud. Donahue: "The applause is for your call for more society energy to be directed at the accomodation of gifted people--"
Rand: "I hope so. But not government spending. However, so long as you support the un-gifted, you owe your first priorities to the gifted."
So clearly she is against government spending on education. But it also seems clear to me that she is saying that the intelligent are of greater value than the mentally disabled, because they are more useful to us.
Of course, any discussion of value must specify what "what type of value to whom?" Anyone who produces more than they consume is of greater value to a society than someone who produces less than they consume, all other things being equal.
However, Bill Gates or Steve Jobs may have no personal value to you whatsoever, whereas the person at the 7 11 who is always so warm and friendly has personal value to you.
So Ayn Rand is saying that individuals should value most what is best for society?