Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

John Galt question

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

It's actually a two-parter:

Is John Galt considered literally a perfect man, or is he a symbol of perfection, towards which all men should strive but not necessarily attain? I don't recall him having any room for improvement either past or present in the book.

Does objectivism teach that all men are capable of the same accomplishments in terms of self-improvement, or does it acknowledge that some people will attain a higher level of self-improvement than others? I use the term "self-improvement" because not all men are capable of the same physical accomplishments and also to keep it broad, inclusive of morality, intelligence, selfishness, etc. For instance, there wasn't anyone who could "live up" to John Galt's example....or, could it be assumed that someone could have come along in the future with the same ideas if he never expressed them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intellectually and physically perhaps no, but Rand definitely holds that every man is capable of being perfectly moral. Remember that morality does not require omniscience and that errors of knowledge cannot be immorality (although evasion is).

It's actually a two-parter:

Is John Galt considered literally a perfect man, or is he a symbol of perfection, towards which all men should strive but not necessarily attain? I don't recall him having any room for improvement either past or present in the book.

Does objectivism teach that all men are capable of the same accomplishments in terms of self-improvement, or does it acknowledge that some people will attain a higher level of self-improvement than others? I use the term "self-improvement" because not all men are capable of the same physical accomplishments and also to keep it broad, inclusive of morality, intelligence, selfishness, etc. For instance, there wasn't anyone who could "live up" to John Galt's example....or, could it be assumed that someone could have come along in the future with the same ideas if he never expressed them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should men not attain perfection?

Well they should. Or try to anyway.

Intellectually and physically perhaps no, but Rand definitely holds that every man is capable of being perfectly moral. Remember that morality does not require omniscience and that errors of knowledge cannot be immorality (although evasion is).

OK that helps. Could you elaborate on the intellectual aspect? In the book he was a brilliant guy. In terms of his plan and ideas, there was no room for improvement at all, so you could literally call his discourse objectivist perfection. Is it implied that someone else could have come up with the same theories and ideas if John Galt had never existed?

Edited by softwareNerd
Fix quote attribution
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does objectivism teach that all men are capable of the same accomplishments in terms of self-improvement, or does it acknowledge that some people will attain a higher level of self-improvement than others?

Well, some men do attain different degrees of self-improvement, mentally and/or physically. If this is a fact, then the question amounts to asking: does Objectivism acknowledge certain facts, while potentially denying others?

Just as all inanimate objects, trees, rocks, are all different, possessing a distinct, nature, i.e., identity, i.e., A is A; each and every human entity, is also different; possessing a distinct identity. No two objects are physically, exactly alike.

This inevitably leads to men differing in their accomplishments, performances, abilities. For example, in school, different people score differently across different subjects.

For instance, there wasn't anyone who could "live up" to John Galt's example

Everyone of the hero’s in the novel “lives up” to John Galt’s “example”.

John Galt’s “example”, abstractly amounts to recognizing that his life is his own. As such, his “example” amounts to him recognizing a certain set of factual conditions about himself and reality, acknowledging them, and acting accordingly.

They all eventually go on strike. Their individual differences such as the contexts of their lives, contexts of their knowledge, and/or each of their distinct virtues, lead them to strike at different times and for concretely differing reasons; but they all go on strike against self-immolation.

Therefore, in some respect, there’s nothing particularly special about John Galt. Every man possessing a healthy brain can do what John Galt does. But, not every person is going to possess his particular set of interests, experiences, education, intelligence, etc. In other words, when faced with the choice of self-sacrifice, a man possessing a normal healthy brain can make the same philosophical choices Galt makes.

Edited by phibetakappa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK that helps. Could you elaborate on the intellectual aspect? In the book he was a brilliant guy. In terms of his plan and ideas, there was no room for improvement at all, so you could literally call his discourse objectivist perfection. Is it implied that someone else could have come up with the same theories and ideas if John Galt had never existed?

Firstly, careful with the quotes. You attributed something to me that was actually what Zip said. I'm leaving the issue of "perfection" and whether it's actually an appropriate concept for human beings alone for the moment.

All I'm going to say is that someone DID come up with the ideas and theories, and her name was Ayn Rand. Although the heroes and events were not real in the sense that the book is a work of fiction, remember that their words and principles were effectively made real by the publication of the book by one very brilliant lady.

I admit that occasionally I find topics like this tiresome because the truth is, not everyone who is interested in Rand and Objectivism is particularly concerned with what Galt would do or how they can be more like Roark. While it's great to have a hero and a model, what's important is applying reason to YOUR life so YOU can be the best exemplar of YOUR values. I think it's a terrible irony to use an individualistic philosophy like Objectivism to be something other than yourself.

I think there is a big difference between saying "this is my vision of the ideal man and how he would handle a scenario where his productivity is enslaved" and "everyone should be exactly like this regardless of their personal context". Now of course there are external standards and some people are just objectively smarter, better-looking, more energetic and hardworking, and more successful than others. It would be unjust to put the achievements of a great typist on the level of the achievements of the person who invented the computer she's using, but both can be moral and successful within their frame of reference and if they are both making use of their abilities productively and for their own happiness, neither has anything to be ashamed of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I asked why men should not attain perfection I meant to imply that they should strive to attain perfection. Whether that goal is reachable or not is another question.

Actually Kat, he attributed your comments to me, or at least my handle was the one used in the post. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I asked why men should not attain perfection I meant to imply that they should strive to attain perfection. Whether that goal is reachable or not is another question.

Actually Kat, he attributed your comments to me, or at least my handle was the one used in the post. :D

Not prior to his edit. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admit that occasionally I find topics like this tiresome because the truth is, not everyone who is interested in Rand and Objectivism is particularly concerned with what Galt would do or how they can be more like Roark. While it's great to have a hero and a model, what's important is applying reason to YOUR life so YOU can be the best exemplar of YOUR values. I think it's a terrible irony to use an individualistic philosophy like Objectivism to be something other than yourself.

I think there is a big difference between saying "this is my vision of the ideal man and how he would handle a scenario where his productivity is enslaved" and "everyone should be exactly like this regardless of their personal context". Now of course there are external standards and some people are just objectively smarter, better-looking, more energetic and hardworking, and more successful than others. It would be unjust to put the achievements of a great typist on the level of the achievements of the person who invented the computer she's using, but both can be moral and successful within their frame of reference and if they are both making use of their abilities productively and for their own happiness, neither has anything to be ashamed of.

Sorry about the quote mixup. I hear what you're saying, though I didn't ask the original question because I want to emulate John Galt. I agree that it's the principles which are important to apply to oneself rather than in the context of a particular character. That's why phibetakappa's quote I thought rung particularly true:

"Therefore, in some respect, there’s nothing particularly special about John Galt. Every man possessing a healthy brain can do what John Galt does. But, not every person is going to possess his particular set of interests, experiences, education, intelligence, etc. In other words, when faced with the choice of self-sacrifice, a man possessing a normal healthy brain can make the same philosophical choices Galt makes."

Which, between the two of you, answers my original question. John Galt simply elucidated the values that a bunch of other people were already thinking. It's optimistic, creating his character, because it allows for the realization of the true potential of every person.

Thanks everyone. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
It's actually a two-parter:

Is John Galt considered literally a perfect man, or is he a symbol of perfection, towards which all men should strive but not necessarily attain? I don't recall him having any room for improvement either past or present in the book.

Does objectivism teach that all men are capable of the same accomplishments in terms of self-improvement, or does it acknowledge that some people will attain a higher level of self-improvement than others? I use the term "self-improvement" because not all men are capable of the same physical accomplishments and also to keep it broad, inclusive of morality, intelligence, selfishness, etc. For instance, there wasn't anyone who could "live up" to John Galt's example....or, could it be assumed that someone could have come along in the future with the same ideas if he never expressed them?

I just happened to be reading an excerpt from "The Virtue of Selfishness" that speaks to your question. It's from the essay 'Divine Right of Stagnation' p. 142

"Every achievement of man is a value of itself, but it is also a stepping-stone to greater achievements and values. Life is growth; not to move forward, is to fall backward; life remains life, only so long as it advances. Every step upward opens to man a wider range of action and achievement and creates the need for that action and achievement. There is no final, permanent "plateau." The problem of survival is never "solved," once and for all, with no further thought or motion required. More precisely, the problem of survival is never solved, by recognizing that survival demands constant growth and creativeness."

In this context I would not regard John Galt as a perfect man or symbol of perfection. He is the only character who consistently practiced the virtues required of him by existence. What was Galt's greatest achievement? The motor? The strike? or perhaps an unknown wonder he would create when the Men of the Mind returned to the world? He never stopped. His achievements enable an even higher degree of achievement. It reminds me of a quote "If I have seen farther it comes from standing on the shoulders of giants." (paraphrased)

This is stark contrast to Jesus in the Christian tradition for example. He is considered perfection and that level of perfection is by definition unattainable to man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should men not attain perfection?

Perfection, by any reasonable definition (such as: 1. better than anyone else, in any conceivable regard, or 2. incapable of committing errors), does not exist in reality. Therefor one should not attain it, and one should not try to attain it.

Instead, we should strive to be moral (and happy), within the context of our lives, like John Galt was. Ayn Rand certainly didn't say he was perfect, anywhere in the novel, nor did she describe him as incapable of error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perfection, by any reasonable definition (such as: 1. better than anyone else, in any conceivable regard, or 2. incapable of committing errors), does not exist in reality.

There are other reasonable definitions of perfection. See, for example, Harry Binswanger's article "The Possible Dream" in the Feb-April 1981 issues of The Objectivist Forum, which explicitly lays out a "rational, this-worldly concept of perfection".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perfection, by any reasonable definition (such as: 1. better than anyone else, in any conceivable regard, or 2. incapable of committing errors), does not exist in reality. Therefor one should not attain it, and one should not try to attain it.

Instead, we should strive to be moral (and happy), within the context of our lives, like John Galt was. Ayn Rand certainly didn't say he was perfect, anywhere in the novel, nor did she describe him as incapable of error.

I disagree. Yes perfection is unattainable but to me it does not follow that it should not be the ideal one strives for.

When creating something, anything, you strive to do your very best, to achieve perfection. A rational man realizes that his skill will most likely not be equal to the task but he will know when he has done his very best measured against the goal of perfection.

To set a lesser standard is to allow for the "good enough" attitude that so many people have creep into your work.

When you have done a job to the best of your ability with the goal of perfection in mind you examine the product and you are critical. This is not a wasted effort for it leads you to think of what you can do next time to get even closer to that goal of perfection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. Yes perfection is unattainable but to me it does not follow that it should not be the ideal one strives for.

I didn't just say it is unattainable, I said it cannot exist, in the ways that I defined it.

( moral perfection is attainable--Rand defines the virtue of pride as "a commitment to moral perfection")

In the end, the two things (unattainable and cannot exist) mean the same, but it does indeed follow (if you agree with Objectivism) that we should not then set as our goal absolute perfection, and become perfectionists, but rather accept that we are mere mortals, and "do our best" (those last three are Tara Smith's words). Someone who does their best (in the sense that they never "refuse to think" - they instead always evaluate what actions are the right ones, and then do them), is a practicing Objectivist.

Ayn Rand also said that "a state of psychological integration - inner unity" is necessary for a man to be able to consistently choose the moral course of action.

I think referring to that as plain "perfection" is going to confuse the Hell out of everyone, because to be perfect implies infallible, the best possible for any human being in every single domain, it does not acknowledge the relevance of context.

[Note: Don't have the Harry Binswanger article, so I can't address it. (I do know he also talks about moral perfection, and context) I think the only thing we are in disagreement, khaight, is boring semantics, anyway.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Moral perfection", defined as: always acting rationally; is attainable and should be strived for.

On nearly every scale of achievement, as long as it is a rational achievement, and in every aspect of life, moral perfection is possible.

Link to comment
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...