Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rearden's desire to kill teachers

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

And no, I'm not making that up:

When Rearden was with the Wet Nurse after he was shot by the thugs in the staged riot at his mill, he expresses that he had:

"a desire to kill"

"The desire to was not directed at the unknown thug who had sent a bullet through the boy's body, or at the looting bureaucrats who had hired the thug to do it, but at the boy's teachers who had delivered him, disarmed, to the thug's guns - at the soft, assassins of college classroom s who, incompetent to answer the queries of a quest for reason, took pleasure in crippling the young minds entrusted to their care."

Why would he have a desire to kill them?

Why not a desire to speak out against them, their teachings, any of the philosophy or ideas behind such teachings? The role of government in education, etc. How does he even know that the boys teachers had taught that, or taken pleasure in crippling the boys mind?

Further in that scene, you can see that his desire is not coming from feeling (emotions at not tools of cognition) but from his thoughts, his thinking. He thought about the boys mother, mothers, teachers, etc.

Any thoughts on any of this?

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you interprete his desire to kill teachers?

I thought the passage Rand wrote in regards to Hugh Akston and how he had wanted to kill, was written beautifully for the most part, but this part, I cannot, as I don't understand why Rearden would desire that. Nor why Akston singled out Stadler.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have any idea how awful some teachers are today? If anyone acted like some of these men and women in any other career they would be fired or put in jail.

About half of the teachers I got throughout my gradeschool experience were either emotionally retarded or incompetent. This comes from the fact that women with no life skills or real knowledge choose to enter into a career that they are unprepared for. After this they usually quit, or become bitter and twisted. Just looking back on some of the emotional reactions my teachers had to what students would do I am shocked. On top of this is the collectivist philosophies commonly preached by these (mostly) women six hours a day. One memorable moment in my childhood was when my third grade teacher was explaining her opinion on school vouchers to us.

Edited by Hairnet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what they are like today, but I do know more about the role government plays in education, thanks to C. Bradley Thompson from an ARI lecture:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reg_ls_school

and his article he has in the current issue of The Objective Standard:

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-winter/new-abolition.asp

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was because the teacher had crippled the kid and delivered him helpless into a world that would kill him. Rearden’s reaction was an artistic painting of the concept of justice.

Remember that the book is art and art dramatizes ideas, in this case Rearden was justifiably shocked and outraged when he grasped that the thugs were not the only murderers of the poor kid, but the teachers that knew better than to teach the ideas that helped make the kind of world that would kill the kid.

Remember, the thugs killed the kid for his virtues and work from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you interprete his desire to kill teachers?

I thought the passage Rand wrote in regards to Hugh Akston and how he had wanted to kill, was written beautifully for the most part, but this part, I cannot, as I don't understand why Rearden would desire that. Nor why Akston singled out Stadler.

The name of the literary device being used is hyperbole. It's very similar to a metaphor. I would interpreted it as a description of Rearden's thoughts on who is to blame for the kid's situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not a desire to speak out against them, their teachings, any of the philosophy or ideas behind such teachings? The role of government in education, etc. How does he even know that the boys teachers had taught that, or taken pleasure in crippling the boys mind?

Let's see. Your life's work is being destroyed, a young man you tried to help dies in your arms, you're probably going to die... and you don't think about revenge or retribution, your mind and emotions don't immediately center on who is to blame and how much you wish you could make them pay. Nope. Your mind goes to: "how can I speak out against them and demonstrate intellectually the role of government?"

Are you kidding? Did you also think the tunnel scene demonstrates that Ayn Rand's philosophy is about how much you deserve to die if you hold bad ideas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"

Are you kidding? Did you also think the tunnel scene demonstrates that Ayn Rand's philosophy is about how much you deserve to die if you hold bad ideas?

I would be a bit more charitable. I would say it is a scene that shows what the consequences of bad ideas can be.

ruveyn1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The name of the literary device being used is hyperbole. It's very similar to a metaphor. I would interpreted it as a description of Rearden's thoughts on who is to blame for the kid's situation.

Why was his desire to kill dire Ted at them, not othes?

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand said the theme of AS is "the role of man's mind in existence", so why would it be surprising that the wrong kind of teachers get some flak? Funny, now I'm imagining the legions of smear-artists latching onto this claiming Rand was for lining teachers up in front of firing squads. Or sending them to gas chambers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand said the theme of AS is "the role of man's mind in existence", so why would it be surprising that the wrong kind of teachers get some flak?

It is surprising to me that Rearden had a desire to kill them. Why them? Why not a desire to bring thugs to justice? Desire to speak out against the role government may have played, the mother, or what the teacher taught, the philosophy they may have gotten it from, etc.

Who is most responsible for the boys death? Parental role, governmental role in education, the thugs role, who had the thugs do what they did, etc... Rearden choose teachers

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is surprising to me that Rearden had a desire to kill them. Why them? Why not a desire to bring thugs to justice? Desire to speak out against the role government may have played, the mother, or what the teacher taught, the philosophy they may have gotten it from, etc.

Who is most responsible for the boys death? Parental role, governmental role in education, the thugs role, who had the thugs do what they did, etc... Rearden choose teachers

It's up to you to discover the answer but if Ms. Rand were alive today and was willing to answer your query, what do you think she would say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's up to you to discover the answer but if Ms. Rand were alive today and was willing to answer your query, what do you think she would say?

Who could possibly know what Ms. Rand would say to day. She has been dead a long time. If she had lived longer, she might have modified her views on some matters. In any case we could not possibly know.

ruveyn1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's up to you to discover the answer but if Ms. Rand were alive today and was willing to answer your query, what do you think she would say?

I don't know what she would say, but what we do know is what Rearden was thinking and the desire he had. I don't know what she would have said , but I do know what I say right now -"Check your premise, Mr. Rearden."

Rearden having a desire to kill the boys teachers does not follow logically, because there is no reason for him to think that the boys teachers taught him what he is thinking that they had taught him. No where in the novel, as far as I have looked, mentions anything at all about the boys teachers and what he was taught, let allow him saying that the boys teachers idea of a man was a collection of chemicals. How can he say that?

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what she would say, but what we do know is what Rearden was thinking and the desire he had. I don't know what she would have said , but I do know what I say right now -"Check your premise, Mr. Rearden."

Rearden having a desire to kill the boys teachers does not follow logically, because there is no reason for him to think that the boys teachers taught him what he is thinking that they had taught him. No where in the novel, as far as I have looked, mentions anything at all about the boys teachers and what he was taught, let allow him saying that the boys teachers idea of a man was a collection of chemicals. How can he say that?

Far from asking Rearden to check his premises, Rand would agree with him (with the obvious caveat that when we feel a desire to "kill" someone it does not follow that we intend to kill them, let alone that we will kill them).

As for whether his teachers taught him that man is a collection of chemicals, you'll need to read the stuff that the Wet Nurse says to Rearden over time and you will find the answer there... just don't go looking for the word "chemical". Look, instead, for what view of man the Wen Nurse espouses. Also make a judgement about the Wet Nurse and about whether he's a major philosopher who came up with all his ideas, or whether he learnt them somewhere.

Having said that, this is a novel, not a court case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Far from asking Rearden to check his premises, Rand would agree with him (with the obvious caveat that when we feel a desire to "kill" someone it does not follow that we intend to kill them, let alone that we will kill them).

My sentiment exactly.

It's healthy to be self aware enough to acknowledge those emotions... and it's even healthier not to act on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Wet Nurse says is that they say that there are no values, that living or dying wouldn't matter to chemicals... but does not say exactly who said that, or exactly who taught him. He doe have a college degree in metallurgy though.

Again, why would Rearden single out the teachers? Why would he not desire using intellectual ammo against their teachings, and instead of, say, real ammo to kill the teachers themselves?

He claims th boys teachers delivered him unarmed to the thugs, what about anyone who delivered him to the teachers, or what role government May have played in any of it? What about the own decisions the Wet Nurse had made?

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The balif cries, "All rise,"

The Honorable Reader enters.

The balif announces, "The supreme mental court of this human consciousness is now in session. The Honorable Judge Reader presiding."

"You may be seated."

The balif cites, "Docket number 1074, the case of Atlas Shrugged: morality of altruism vs. morality of egoism."

"Is the prosecution ready?"

"I am, your Honor", Miss Rand replies.

"Is the defense ready?"

"I am, you Honor", Miss Rand replies.

"You may proceed."

That could make for a rather novel approach. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"But a different breed of teachers had once existed, [Rearden] thought, and had reared the men who created this country; he thought that mothers should set out on their knees to look for men like Hugh Akston, to find them and beg them to return."

Reardon heard Akston mentioned at his wife's anniversary party via Fransisco. Dagney encountered Akston at the diner.

He must have been renowned enough (the attractive young woman connected the relative ages of Akston and Fransisco) for Rearen to pick as an example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is surprising to me that Rearden had a desire to kill them. Why them? Why not a desire to bring thugs to justice? Desire to speak out against the role government may have played, the mother, or what the teacher taught, the philosophy they may have gotten it from, etc.

... The book isn't about how bad being a thug is; that's a pretty obvious point to make. The world has always had thugs, and always will. The book is about philosophy, and in the case of the Wet Nurse, fresh out of college and full of ridiculous ideas, it's pretty clear where his philosophy came from. It's a pretty simple passage to understand, really.

Who is most responsible for the boys death? Parental role, governmental role in education, the thugs role, who had the thugs do what they did, etc... Rearden choose teachers

You've picked a passage that's specifically about teachers and then... wondered why it's specifically about teachers? As with all writing, different passages focus on different things. You seem to want every passage to be a microcosm of the entire philosophy being put forth, and that's just ridiculous.

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...