Wow, I don’t really
know where to start for this reaction. Ayn Rand is absolutely insane. That
sounds good. Who would write the longest speech ever, that’s right Ayn Rand. John
Galt is a man with an ego larger than the universe itself. He may be
pronouncing that following on one’s own path and not relying on others is the
right thing to do, but the man just thinks he is better than everyone else. The
root of his reasoning is still obscure to me. Yes he was a successful man, he
also was leeched on by others, leading him to his current state, but do being
successful and a target for looters make him a great man? I don’t think so, but
don’t take my opinion blindly, like you may have done with Rand through John
Galt. I believe that the great man is the one who does act for himself, but the
man that acts selflessly.
The great man
is an obscure idea that can be interpreted in many ways. But I would like to
rephrase myself and refer to the virtuous man, the one that society looks up
to. The virtuous man in my opinion is he who lies down his life, the
firefighter who runs into a burning building, the soldier who jumps on a
grenade to save his comrades, the average man who jumps in front of traffic to
save a child who has strayed the wrong way. I do not believe that one’s work is
the basis by which one should value a person in society. And here lies the root
of the differences between Ayn Rand and myself.
Society is
something that Ayn Rand must in fact intrinsically dislike. Her beliefs have no
other route to follow. If no man is to rely on another then by definition there
will be no society. As I have said before this leads to anarchy which has a slew
of problems in the real world, no matter how fine and dandy it sounds on paper.
Communism and Socialism sound good on paper, by the way. Yet to the point, the
fact that we differ on how humanity exists is the root of the problem and will
also lead to inherent differences. I think that what is true is true, but it
seems to me after delving into the mind of Ayn Rand that people can live in a
reality where they accept different truths. So I will no longer argue about a
point in which the opposition lives in another reality. Yet there will be
plenty more to come for my final thoughts later this week.
I have to say, after weeks of reading Atlas Shrugged it was very refreshing to read this. It is nice to be reminded that the world does not revolve around the book (and therefore around Rand's opinions). I agree with you entirely about Galt. He is extremely egotistical- but not always in an in-your-face kind of way. He has a very haughty manner to him, like a God-complex or something of that nature. My personal belief is that Francisco did a better job at explaining Rand's theories than Galt does, because even though Francisco talks excessively, he doesn't take up 53 pages of the book without letting anyone else speak. He converses with people and listens to them. He also doesn't stalk people (which is a plus). I do not think Galt is the mighty being Rand makes him out to be at all. Sure he has completed the "American dream" but does that make a man a great man? No! Horrible men can do the same thing! But I won't rant in this comment. I'll conclude by saying if the speech was too much for you- I wouldn't reccomend ever picking anything up by David Foster Wallace.
ReplyDeleteWell... a long speech does make sense. Not necessarily for the actual content within the speech, but just the sheer length of it can make the reader realize how much is actually wrong with this society. It says something to both the reader and the viewer in this messed up world that a man like Galt can make an insanely large speech just to talk about how the society has become. Forget how the society has been in the recent past (100 years), this is just the recent pitfalls (recent as in since the story's genesis). 90 Pages of Society's Negative Qualities? This must be a really f*cked up world...
ReplyDeleteI think your thoughts are really well put here, Lawrence, I think you voiced your ideas well. However, I have got to say that I disagree with you.
ReplyDeleteNow first I must concede to your final point about your opposition existing in another reality, I have been ranting angrily about that since we started this insanely large book. Most of Rand's arguments in this book are easily refuted because they exist in their own universe and with their own rules, my favorite example being the Rearden/Potter conflict where Potter (representing government intervention) sits there like a blabbering idiot instead of making any real argument making him look like a fool, but in reality if the government is claiming to be motivated by the public good there would be some sort of data behind it. SO with this in mind, I should reasonably be in agreement with everything you're saying, but you have removed your argument from the book and its examples and now you're trying to take on Rand on the philosophical theater, and in that realm I disagree with both of you.
I take issue with the fact that you deny Galt's definition of greatness/virtuousness because the way in which you do so implies that only one definition is possible. I do not believe a virtuous man is selfish or selfless, I think it is someone who's involvement in a situation increases the net happiness, but I see Rand's point in saying a virtuous man is one who uses his own abilities to their fullest extent. We have one life, and Rand believe the virtuous man is the one who fully explores their abilities within it, she just happens to believe that abilities will always lead to profit. Now here is where I disagree with her, I don't think everything has to relate to business, I think she's crazy, but I also happen to think you are wrong.
I do not believe Rand has to hate society, it is the only structure in which her ideals can exist, but I kind of see where you are coming from. I think you are relying on Hobbes' idea of the social contract system for this example, and Ran has a similar foundation but without the contract part. Rand believes that a society should be a bunch of people behaving in self-interest to the best of their abilities and one person's success will allow for another person to succeed. She hates the idea of people relying on the product of another person's labor without working for it themselves; it is an idea with blurry borders but I am confident in saying that is her position.
I have one final contention with your post, and it is on the topic of John Galt. I do agree that Galt, as a character, must have a massive ego, but I do see him as not a character but as Rand's tool to give the clearest propaganda possible to the reader, so I suppose I do not analyze him in the same way, and our expectations are likely different. I think Rand never actually tries to characterize him the way she does other characters. She does allow him to be used for Dagny's love life and other plot points, but primarily he is the medium through which Rand can look through the story directly at the reader and say "This is what objectivism is all about".
I do feel the need to finish off by saying that despite my disagreements, I totally see where all your points are coming from and I think you presented them well, I just disagree with the ideas. Looking forward to your final thoughts, Lawrence, they should be hilarious.