On Akstons reason to strike

[dream_weaver]

If they were literally going to, yes.

When he did come back to speak to the world, it was a "Ha, Ha, I told you I would stop the motor of the world." It was never let me try to change their minds about the code that they practice, accept, teach, etc., it was never him trying to convert theirkind before the speech he made. I didn't think he was trying to convert them THEN either. It was all way more about purging theirkind, not converting them.

He did appeal to those with whom he could reason with. He actively sought them out. He made them aware of the code that they were practicing and accepted. When they changed their minds and chose a different code to practice and accept, they quit their business of dropping the fruits of their labor into the open mouths who expected the mana to continue to fall in from the heavens.

[intellectualammo]

He appealed to hiskind. He spoke of neutrals, but did not try to appeal to them, then. He also did not try to appeal to theirkind, or mankind in general, only hiskind. So he already knows there are neutrals, ones that have not taken any explicit stance, or showing that they were not open to reason.

He was not out to change minds, but after hiskind and to approach only them to join him, in order to collapse the whole structure upon theirkinds heads.

Edited January 18, 2013 by intellectualammo

[dream_weaver]

He appealed to hiskind. He spoke of neutrals, but did not try to appeal to them, then. He also did not try to appeal to theirkind, or mankind in general, only hiskind. So he already knows there are neutrals, ones that have not taken any explicit stance, or showing that they were not open to reason.

He was not out to change minds, but after hiskind and to approach only them to join him, in order to collapse the whole structure upon theirkinds heads.

Do you think he ought have the moral obligation and duty to do so?

[intellectualammo]

A duty? Absolutely not. I'm not one for a duty-oriented ethics.

Edited January 19, 2013 by intellectualammo

[moralist]

He appealed to hiskind. He spoke of neutrals, but did not try to appeal to them, then. He also did not try to appeal to theirkind, or mankind in general, only hiskind. So he already knows there are neutrals, ones that have not taken any explicit stance, or showing that they were not open to reason.

He was not out to change minds, but after hiskind and to approach only them to join him, in order to collapse the whole structure upon theirkinds heads.

I believe that it was because he understood that "neutrals" are totally worthless.

If a person happens to be swayed by the strongest external force of the moment, they can also be swayed the other way when in the presence of another external force. You never want to put yourself in the position of entrusting your life to any person who lacks inner conviction, because you cannot ever count on their loyalty.

[intellectualammo]

I think neutrals, the word Galt uses, though he does not say who they exactly are, are children, babies, ones that are not on a side in the battle, basically.

[Jam Man]

Precisely. And that is why I am raising the issue on why they choose that, then.

They not only foresaw a collapse, but were waiting for it, eagerly anticipating it, and speeding it up. Galt was trying to get theirkind the hell out of the way for hiskind. Ruin the country/world, not try to change it, then to return to it afterwards.

Why would they choose the alternative: to spend their lives living in a world which hates them as much as it needs them, and which takes from them as much as it damns them, and then turn all their energies to the task of lecturing to that world (while it sucks their life out of them) "Let me be free; here's why"? Why choose to live as livestock professors who attempt to educate their farmers, when they can choose to live as free men?

[ruveyn1]

Why would they choose the alternative: to spend their lives living in a world which hates them as much as it needs them, and which takes from them as much as it damns them, and then turn all their energies to the task of lecturing to that world (while it sucks their life out of them) "Let me be free; here's why"? Why choose to live as livestock professors who attempt to educate their farmers, when they can choose to live as free men?

Lecturing rarely changes anyone's mind. Suffering, pain, privation, hazard and death are more likely to change someone's mind.

There is an old saying: As ye sow, so shall reap. The Looters and Moochers sowed the wind; Galt and company enabled them to reap the whirlwind. One of the most satisfying victories is to see one's enemies hoisted on their own petards.

Meaning

Injured by the device that you intended to use to injure others.

ruveyn1

[moralist]

Lecturing rarely changes anyone's mind. Suffering, pain, privation, hazard and death are more likely to change someone's mind.

Yes. There is no finer teacher than the reality of the consequences we set into motion by our own actions.

There is an old saying: As ye sow, so shall reap. The Looters and Moochers sowed the wind; Galt and company enabled them to reap the whirlwind. One of the most satisfying victories is to see one's enemies hoisted on their own petards.

Meaning

Injured by the device that you intended to use to injure others.

ruveyn1

One of the qualities I love most about Atlas Shrugged is Ayn Rand's unflinching sense of moral justice.

[intellectualammo]

Lecturing rarely changes anyone's mind. Suffering, pain, privation, hazard and death are more likely to change someone's mind

One thing is clear, they were out to teach them a real lesson alright. Choose to perish or learn. I guess they thought that their minds would be more open to them then, rather than before striking, or as I see it as, let's not even try to appealing to minds, let's just collapse it all upon their heads instead.

[intellectualammo]

This quote is interesting when Akston speaks to Dagny, and helps support what I said:

"I am writing a book on this subject, defining a moral philosophy that I learned from my own pupil... Yes, it could save the world... No, it will not be published outside."

So Galts moral philosophy could have saved the world... but Galt used his philosophy not to appeal to minds with initially, but bring about collapse upon their heads, purging them that way, so hiskind can return. And take over. Judge Narragansett was already making changes to a copy of the US Constituition in preparation for it, and had also been working on a treatise on the philosophy of law.

[ruveyn1]

This quote is interesting when Akston speaks to Dagny, and helps support what I said:

"I am writing a book on this subject, defining a moral philosophy that I learned from my own pupil... Yes, it could save the world... No, it will not be published outside."

 

 

I respond:   That was Akston's opinion of his work.  He could not have known for sure that it would have saved the world.  Could  = It is possible.  Would =  I is for sure.

 

ruveyn.

[Craig24]

This quote is interesting when Akston speaks to Dagny, and helps support what I said:

"I am writing a book on this subject, defining a moral philosophy that I learned from my own pupil... Yes, it could save the world... No, it will not be published outside."

So Galts moral philosophy could have saved the world... but Galt used his philosophy not to appeal to minds with initially, but bring about collapse upon their heads, purging them that way, so hiskind can return. And take over. Judge Narragansett was already making changes to a copy of the US Constituition in preparation for it, and had also been working on a treatise on the philosophy of law.

 

Yes, that's the point.  The novel appeals to the real world (the reader) by showing what happens to the world when the mind goes on strike.  It would have been pointless for Galt, Akston and company to make any such appeals to the make believe world outside the gulch.   Why even write such a book?  That would be boring. 

[intellectualammo]

She probably would have been bored doing it. There was a quote I had that went into that (which when I find it, I will share it here). Which to me now begs a question...

But if it could have saved the world, did she have Galt choose the method that he did, purely for the sake of the story itself to save herself from boredom when writing?

I would have written it differently.

Edited February 8, 2013 by intellectualammo

[Craig24]

She probably would have been bored doing it. There was a quote I had that went into that (which when I find it, I will share it here). Which to me now begs a question...

But if it could have saved the world, did she have Galt choose the method that he did, purely for the sake of the story itself to save herself from boredom when writing?

I would have written it differently.

 

Consider the reason Ayn Rand might have chosen to dramatize a strike of the mind instead of writing a story about intellectuals making appeals to other men to change their thinking and behavior.  Which choice makes the story more interesting, more exciting and more dramatic?  Which choice illustrates the role of the mind in human existence better?   Intellectual appeals to the looter class or a comprehensive strike of the mind against the looter class? 

[softwareNerd]

Which choice makes the story more interesting, more exciting and more dramatic?

And more realistic! Edited February 9, 2013 by softwareNerd

[intellectualammo]

Found the quote, from the intro to centennial edition of this book, where she mentioned boredom:

 

I seem to be both a theoretical philosopher and a fiction writer. But it is the last that interests me most; the first is only the means to the last; the absolutely necessary means, but only the means; the fiction story is the end. Without an understanding and statement of the right philosophical principle, I cannot create the right story; but the discovery of the principle interests me only as the discovery of the proper knowledge to be used for my life purpose; and my life purpose is the creation of the kind of world (people and events) that I like— that is, that represents human perfection.

Philosophical knowledge is necessary in order to define human perfection. But I do not care to stop at the definition. I want to use it, to apply it— in my work (in my personal life, too— but the core, center and purpose of my personal life, of my whole life, is my work).

This is why, I think, the idea of writing a philosophical nonfiction book bored me. In such a book, the purpose would actually be to teach others, to present my idea to them. In a book of fiction the purpose is to create, for myself, the kind of world I want and to live in it while I am creating it; then, as a secondary consequence, to let others enjoy this world, if, and to the extent that they can.

 

Her characters in their lives in the story also chose not to teach lessons either, but sought to teach them all a lesson, instead.  Yet, she lectured and spoke and wrote much nonfiction later though, in our world, appealing to minds, not actively trying to collapse it all on their heads.

 

In our age,  what we are facing, is the zombie culture  -  it's crucial to know whether or not we can appeal to their minds, as that is what is standing in our way mainly and what to do when or if we can't..   We of course may choose various creative ways to get them out of the way, like when Galt and crew struck, etc.  Right now, mainly we, as Rand did to, is to appeal to minds, those still open to any reason.  Spread ideas and thoughts and so forth.  But are such things effective on zombies, vampires, sheeple, lemmings, etc?  are we not just flattering them when we try to appeal to their minds? 

Edited February 9, 2013 by intellectualammo

[ruveyn1]

One thing is clear, they were out to teach them a real lesson alright. Choose to perish or learn. I guess they thought that their minds would be more open to them then, rather than before striking, or as I see it as, let's not even try to appealing to minds, let's just collapse it all upon their heads instead.

Is that just?  You never know for sure.  Perhaps one lesson is sufficient to wake someone up.  Do you wished to be doomed by a single mistake on your part if correction is possible?  If not,  then you should not be too anxious to doom others.

 

Personally,  I prefer to cut someone some slack if there is a reasonable chance of getting his attention.

 

ruveyn1

[My 99 are free]

He didn't surrender completely.  He worked on the side as a philosopher, I expect; just as Galt did his experiments and Francisco is shown designing a blast furnace.  He decided to stop giving to those who gave nothing and worse: to those who took when he gave.
You may be missing the point that galt has no guilt.  He does what he wants and doesn't care.  Galt feels humans have their own choice so he blames them when they don't do what he wants.

[My 99 are free]

Is that just?  You never know for sure.  Perhaps one lesson is sufficient to wake someone up.  Do you wished to be doomed by a single mistake on your part if correction is possible?  If not,  then you should not be too anxious to doom others.

 

Personally,  I prefer to cut someone some slack if there is a reasonable chance of getting his attention.

 

ruveyn1

Galt was giving them a chance with his speech.  He gave the answer and said, basically, "accept or perish."  He always left the choice up to them.  What else is there?  You wanted him to say "accept my morality, perish, or come and live off of me"? 

Edited February 11, 2013 by My 99 are free

[ruveyn1]

Galt was giving them a chance with his speech.  He gave the answer and said, basically, "accept or perish."  He always left the choice up to them.  What else is there?  You wanted him to say "accept my morality, perish, or come and live off of me"? 

Not at all.  Cutting a reasonable amount of slack for another person is not the same as becoming his doormat.

 

ruveyn1

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Intellectual Ammo, you claim that you don't hold a duty-based system of ethics, but that's what you're implicitly advocating.  You're upset that Hugh Akston and Ragnar Danneskjold simply "gave up" the debate before they even started, implying that it was wrong (or perhaps distasteful?) of them to do so.

The fact is that nobody has the duty to educate the rest of the human race.  If they want to try then they can, but if they don't then they can do something else.

 

If you found a technique for creating infinite and free energy, (speaking purely hypothetically) would you be morally bound to tell someone about it and how it works?  What about two people?  Does it have to be at least a dozen people, the rest of the species, or just one other person?

What if they think you're full of it?  Are you doomed to dedicate the rest of your existence to helping them discover it, or are they allowed to walk away?  I think that if you stop to consider it a bit more, you'll realize the answers to your own questions. 

[intellectualammo]

You are right, in so far as Galts primary concern was the best, not the rest:

From Rands journal:

The strikers have won, not because the parasites have learned anything or because the parasites have collapsed physically, but because the last of the strikers (Rearden and Dagny) have learned the lesson that Galt wanted to teach the best brains of the world - the lesson of not supporting their own destroyers, and the creators’ nature, function, and proper code. From now on, the exploitation of the best by the worst will never again be permitted by the best.

In a note AR wrote to her publisher (of We the Living) Feb.2,1936:

I do give a good deal about human beings. No, not all of them. Only those worthy of the name.

I didn't say or mean to imply what Akston did was wrong, just wondering as to why. Edited April 4, 2013 by intellectualammo