Ayn Rand's Dustier Corners pt. 1: "Obscenity of Evil that Con

[Epistemological Engineer]

From Hank Rearden's thoughts, upon hearing about the "Equalization of Opportunity Bill":

He shook his head. There are things one must not contemplate, he thought. There is an obscenity of evil which contaminates the observer. There is a limit to what it is proper for a man to see. He must not think of this, or look within it, or try to learn the nature of its roots.

(AS, 35th Anniversary Ed., p.215, where 215=6x6x6 -1, Part I, ch. VII "The Exploiters and The Exploited.)

Was this the emotional reflex of Rearden's pure, naive innocence, or did Rand intend this as a general admonition to all readers?

I think Nietzsche was right on when he said something along the lines of "The first thing a man thinks when he hears 'Thou Shalt Not' is, 'What if I do'? " Indeed, Rand herself undertook a serious study of the depths of human evil long before writing (or even conceiving) Atlas Shrugged--she read Dostoevsky and Tolstoy in her youth (not to mention having first-hand experiences with the evils of twentieth-century Soviet regimes.)

In spite of Nietzsche's undeniably accurate insight, though, I often wonder if curiosity should be suppressed and the exploration of certain depths of human evil should not even be begun.

[Pokarrin]

I always interpreted this passage as indicating his aversion to facing the truth John Galt had already accepted; he sensed that if he consciously identified the motive behind the bill, it would require him to abandon his work just as Galt had, and he wasn't yet ready to make that leap.

[khaight]

I always interpreted this passage as indicating his aversion to facing the truth John Galt had already accepted; he sensed that if he consciously identified the motive behind the bill, it would require him to abandon his work just as Galt had, and he wasn't yet ready to make that leap.

I agree with this analysis. At that early point in the novel Rearden's ideas are flawed. He holds a number of errors that he later repudiates; I think this is one of them.

[Chris.S]

Was this the emotional reflex of Rearden's pure, naive innocence, or did Rand intend this as a general admonition to all readers?

I think Nietzsche was right on when he said something along the lines of "The first thing a man thinks when he hears 'Thou Shalt Not' is, 'What if I do'? " Indeed, Rand herself undertook a serious study of the depths of human evil long before writing (or even conceiving) Atlas Shrugged--she read Dostoevsky and Tolstoy in her youth (not to mention having first-hand experiences with the evils of twentieth-century Soviet regimes.)

In spite of Nietzsche's undeniably accurate insight, though, I often wonder if curiosity should be suppressed and the exploration of certain depths of human evil should not even be begun.

Like the others have said, Rearden's mistake is the fact that he was trying to evade the evil that others were pushing on him because he loved his work. It was only when Galt gave him (and the others) the insight into the nature of the evil that he and the rest were able to realize that if they love their work and their lives so much, they must throw off the shackles that are being thrust onto them and remove themselves from the situation (ie shrug).

You can't properly fight evil unless you know how it works. Rearden's method of fighting the evil in AS was to continue to produce and produce more than he would usually. The problem with that is the moochers just steal more and more until they finally have your skin.

And notice how the villains in AS know more about Rearden than Rearden knows about the villains? They know everything about how he works, and exploit that viciously. Rearden didn't know anything about them because he was unwilling to go down there.

Edited July 2, 2009 by Chris.S

[Epistemological Engineer]

Thank you for your replies. I agree with the analyses put forth here. I had always been curious if Ayn Rand herself believed that some depths of evil truly could "contaminate the observer," or if that was just Rearden's current mindset.

[softwareNerd]

I had always been curious if Ayn Rand herself believed that some depths of evil truly could "contaminate the observer," or if that was just Rearden's current mindset.

I think it is probably both.

Evil can "contaminate the observer", in the sense of changing his view of the world and of man. Since man derives his general world-view from specific concretes, a constant and repeated exposure to evil can lead to a less benevolent world-view, if one does not check the automated generalization. For instance, a person dealing with criminals all the time, probably has to make a conscious effort to remind himself not to use them as a standard for his idea of "human beings", and not to use crime as his standard for "human life and interaction". He probably has to "leave his work behind him" when he comes home, consciously switching to a more benevolent world-view.

Rearden fears that if he considers this particular evil, it will contaminate his world-view. (Meanwhile, Galt has faced it, understood it, and has a benevolent world-view in spite of it.) Rearden does not have the mindset to start down that path.

[Jackethan]

As for the Nietzsche quote. I don't think it's evil at all for the first thing you think of to be 'what if I do?' That's normal, and healthy. Thou shalt not is a law supposedly put forth by an authority. Your first reaction should always be, says who, by what authority, for what purpose. It is not evil to be disobedient. Nietzsche had his own version of what you're talking about "When you stare into the abyss the abyss stares back at you." The only way learning of evil can affect you is if you drop the context that evil is evil. It is not evil that corrupts your worldview, it is you that allows yourself to be corrupted.

[Epistemological Engineer]

As for the Nietzsche quote. I don't think it's evil at all for the first thing you think of to be 'what if I do?'...

The examination of evil is not itself inherently evil. :-) I included this quote because I thought it was an apt observation on human psychology.

I can't actually remember where he wrote this. All I know is I read it many years back and it really stuck with me.

[L-C]

Like softwareNerd, I'd say it can be a concern but it doesn't have to. Be conscious about anything you don't want to merely be run and screened by your autopilot alone.

[Jas0n]

It reads to me like textbook denial.

[Capitalism Forever]

Spend an hour reading the craziest rants of Marx, Hitler, bin Laden, and their likes, and observe your mental state.

Then, spend an hour reading OPAR Chapter 8 and Atlas Shrugged Part I Chapter VIII, and listening to Mozart and Rachmaninoff. Observe your mental state.

I am not saying that contemplating evil can somehow negate your volitional faculty and turn a good man into evil; what I am saying is that the choice of whether to focus on the evil or on the good is itself a volitional choice, and if you willingly choose to spend all your time immersed in evil, you are willingly choosing to subject yourself to attacks on your mind and your sense of life.

[Capitalism Forever]

Or here's another way to put it: Contemplating evil is Dominique's (initial) choice; not thinking about it is Roark's choice.