Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Joynewyeary

John Galt's Motivation And Plan?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

The Twentieth Century Motor Company was inherited and the heirs introduced a kind of socialism. Galt, an employee, didn't accept the plan. He said, "I will put an end to this, once and for all." He didn't mean that he was going to keep the Motor Company the way it was before the socialistic plan. He meant that he was going to affect the whole country or perhaps even the world political situation.

It seems that he was motivated by what was happening at the Motor Company. Shouldn't he have been motivated by his knowledge of the actual situation regarding politics and legislation in his country?

It seems that the worst political policies described in Atlas Shrugged weren't enacted until after Galt was already pursuing his plan to "put an end to this, once and for all." For example, it seems that Directive 10-289 was introduced after Galt was already attempting to "put an end to this."

Did the oldest human tribes already have an ideal political system? If they didn't, then how did human beings ever create good political systems? Did they do it by causing society to collapse and expecting the collapse to lead to good results? What makes Galt think that a collapse will be beneficial this time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Galt studied science and philosophy. He understood thought systems. I think he had knowledge of the evolution of ideas/concepts in his society. I think the changes in the Twentieth Centery Motor Co triggerd something with him. He suddenly realised how many ground some concepts already had or was confronted with the fruits of collectivist mentality trough what was going on in his company.

It is said laws are un unperfect expression of how a group of people sees a perfect society. If an idea or ideology has a strong foothold, law will change in accordance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Twentieth Century Motor Company was inherited and the heirs introduced a kind of socialism. [...]

Not in the Atlas Shrugged that I read. Altruism was the immediate problem he saw, and hierarchically supporting that position (in ethics) was denial of reason (epistemology) and therefore denial of human consciousness (metaphysics).

It seems that he was motivated by what was happening at the Motor Company.

Not in the Atlas Shrugged that I read. His motivation was selfish. What he saw happen in that one company helped draw his attention to a wider problem. He understood the problem -- and the only solution suitable for a world already in an advanced state of corruption: Let the corrupt, dominant philosophy take its course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If they didn't, then how did human beings ever create good political systems?

They got on boats and headed west across an ocean to a place where they could create a new society with other people who's dominant philosophy was based on reason. When the government of the old society started to interfere too much, the people in the new society started to shoot them. And they kept shooting at them until the old government went back to the old country across the ocean. After being shot at, people in the old society realized, ironically, that the new society was right and adopted many of their political policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He understood the problem -- and the only solution suitable for a world already in an advanced state of corruption: Let the corrupt, dominant philosophy take its course.

By actively trying to persuade successful industrialists to stop doing the work they ordinarily did, was John Galt merely letting a corrupt, dominant philosophy take its course?

By writing his radio speech (that identified who he was) and using powerful, secret technology to interfere with the regularly scheduled broadcast and replace that broadcast with his speech, was John Galt merely letting a corrupt, dominant philosophy take its course?

If Galt had been born in Europe just as the Renaissance was beginning, might he have opposed the Renaissance on the grounds that the corrupt philosophy dominating Europe had not yet finished taking its course?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By actively trying to persuade successful industrialists to stop doing the work they ordinarily did, was John Galt merely letting a corrupt, dominant philosophy take its course?

Not in the sense that he was being passive. I don't think that was the implication.

Rather, in this sense: the bad is able to survive solely because of the good. The usual form of this is people who have many virtues but also hold some bad ideas, thus putting themselves in service of corrupt ideas.

Galt decided to remove the most important "good" people. In this sense the novel is a dramatization of the impotence of evil. In this sense, the idea is "if evil is allowed to take its course" without the support of the good, society will collapse.

If Galt had been born in Europe just as the Renaissance was beginning, might he have opposed the Renaissance on the grounds that the corrupt philosophy dominating Europe had not yet finished taking its course?

Not sure what you are getting at. What do you think Galt would have done if he was a "Renaissance man"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure what you are getting at. What do you think Galt would have done if he was a "Renaissance man"?

Suppose Galt had been born at the right time to become the very first Renaissance man. Would he have thought that it was too soon for there to be a Renaissance?

What is the advantage of a collapse? Aren't chaotic conditions more likely to help charismatic aspiring dictators than to help people who aspire to be rational statesmen?

Observe that Atlas Shrugged does not describe the implementation of any political improvements. It describes laws that get worse and conditions that get worse. Apparently the good news that Galt is rescued is supposed to be enough to satisfy us to accept a few symbolic gestures in the final two pages of the novel as an indication that all of the previous trends will be reversed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joynewyeary,

If you are asking: Is "shrugging" the right thing to do?

Then, consider that...

1) Ayn Rand did not "shrug"

2) Howard Roark did not "shrug"

3) You will have to look hard to find someone on this forum who is planning to "shrug"

The theme of Atlas Shrugged is: "the importance of reason" (Art of Fiction, by Ayn Rand).

What better way to dramatize that than by showing what would happen if men of reason were removed from the world. What if they simply went on strike!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...