Hank Reardon's Trial

[dream_weaver]

I enjoy good double entendres. Sometimes it takes a while to see one that is sitting right in front of you.

 

Wikipedia set the context:

Rand's stated goal for writing the novel was "to show how desperately the world needs prime movers and how viciously it treats them" and to portray "what happens to a world without them". The core idea for the book came to her after a 1943 telephone conversation with a friend, who asserted that Rand owed it to her readers to write fiction about her philosophy. Rand replied, "What if I went on strike? What if all the creative minds of the world went on strike?"

 

I was searching on the word "hope". I find myself musing from time to time how I think others see Objectivism as a threat. Skepticism, for instance is threatened by certainty. Faith is threatened by reason. The hatred of the good for being good threatens mediocrity.
 

I found the highlighted word hope in the following:

I could say to you that I have done more good for my fellow man than you can ever hope to accomplish—but I will not say it, because I do not seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist, nor do I recognize the good of others as a justification for their seizure of my property or their destruction of my life.
 

Thinking that was a pretty good piece to chew on a bit, I started to read the sentences around it.

 

I found this one before:

I refuse to apologize for my ability—I refuse to apologize for my success—I refuse to apologize for my money. If this is evil, make the most of it. If this is what the public finds harmful to its interests let the public destroy me.

And this one after:

I will not say that the good of others was the purpose of my work—my own good was my purpose, and I despise the man who surrenders his. I could say to you that you do not serve the public good—that nobody's good can be achieved at the price of human sacrifices—that when you violate the rights of one man, you have violated the rights of all, and a public of rightless creatures is doomed to destruction.

 

Scrolling back to the beginning of the entry, I discovered it had come from  FTNI - Atlas Shrugged, The Moral Meaning of Capitalism, which starts with the header;

This is a statement made by Hank Rearden at his trial for an illegal sale of a metal alloy which he had created and which has been placed under government rationing and control.

 

Not only was Hank Reardon putting forth his moral defense at the trial, if you go back and re-read it you'll find that Ayn Rand returned the phone call, revealing a quality of the metal she was wrought from.

 

Edited finally to add:

 

Clicking thru a few more hits, I ran across this excerpt from the introduction to ITOE:

I am very glad to see you all here. I have a definite purpose in mind for these sessions—namely, to make as clear as possible the nature of the Objectivist theory of concepts. My purpose here will not be to talk about Objectivism generally, but to discuss in detail—,-or, as we call it, to "chew"—this particular book. I regard it as very important; I hope you do too. I think this is a foundation which will help us to understand anything else about Objectivism.

 

I must also say that I do to, and I must thank those who have been beneficial in "chew"ing this stuff over with me over the years here.

Edited February 4, 2015 by dream_weaver

[StrictlyLogical]

Weaver... sometimes I read something of yours...

 

and for all the truth.. and poetry... and imagery you weave...

 

 

I am left with absolutely no clue.  

 

 

It is very disconcerting for me but hey... you have your shtick I have mine. 

[dream_weaver]

Lol. Thanks. I did not think I was being that cryptic.

 

Read Reardon's defense, from his trial, in the context of it being his trial.

There is no mention of what he does or what it is about; save for the events which lead up to the trial - which you import from Atlas Shrugged.

 

Read it again, imagining Miss Rand answering that telephone call she got in 1943, essentially using the same words as a defense for why she does not "owe it" to her readers to write a fiction work based of her philosophy of Objectivism.

 

If this still leaves you without a clue, then maybe I am grasping at straws here.

[StrictlyLogical]

Interesting.  Certainly both Rand and fictional Reardon are acting (and portrayed as acting) as rational egoists.

 

It is a good observation, the echo or mirroring.  This is a commonality that one could use to imagine Rand literally speaking through Reardon.

 

I think there is a slight difference introduced by context and their respective life's work.  If Reardon were real, his context would be as a businessman making money (by making metal) and he defends his rational self-interest at his trial more or less directly for his business although he has some interest in attempting to show others, the judge, society, the truth of what he says it is not his aim to tell them the truth for the sake of its truth. 

 

Rand due to her context, ability as an author to reach many people, spread ideas, I think was also in the business of making money; with her writing, but that includes her ideas.  I am familiar with written and film biographies of her, and although I cannot recall this being her main aim, I believe it was Rand's purpose, a selfish purpose, to spread her ideas, to improve society to the extent possible.

 

So with Rand we have the content of the speech being one of the main purposes of its presentation, the spreading of its ideas, of rational-self interest and morality to society, whereas for Reardon the content was presented for a purpose other than the dissemination of ideas. 

 

 

Whether or not this distinction is minor or major I leave it up to you.

 

 

That said, there certainly IS an echo and a mirroring, one of the other.

[dream_weaver]

I appreciate you taking a moment of your time to address the ambiguity of my opening post.

 

As I continue to strive for more clarity in my thinking, the power of philosophy has manifested itself in ways I hadn't imagined. "I'm not brave enough to be a coward", an interesting way she put it there before following with "I see the consequence too clearly." That would tie in with making a case for it being perhaps her main aim.

 

I listen to guys like Andrew Bernstein and Yaron Brooks, bubbling with enthusiasm in their presentations, I looked inside and found the stuff I couched as Objectivism being a threat to, Then I realized, Objectivism isn't a threat, It provides hope. It does so by being properly integrated, which is itself a monumental undertaking, or has been for me.

[dream_weaver]

In addition to being Hank Reardon's defense, a possible answer to a phone call, and The Moral Reason for Capitalism, this seems to touch on the power of morality within philosophy.

 

From the VOR - 27 - The Inverted Moral Priorities, by Ayn Rand

There is only one power that could paralyze the country's leaders, a power more potent than the power of money, of professional knowledge, even of political force: the power of morality.

 

When I saw this:

The real enemy of men is corruption, and the weapon against that enemy is reason.

it was like my mind went: No! This is not quite right.

 

Reformulating that provided a real see-change for me:

The real enemy of man is altruism, which itself is the result of a corruption in the application of reason to the realm of morality. It implicitly counts on man as a moral being, while it arises from a bastardized moral code which it uses as a weapon to try to control and manipulate men. Yes, reason is the weapon against that enemy. It gains its effectiveness by discovering the proper sire of a proper code of morality, against which altruism is ineffectual, unless and until it becomes embodied in the group.

 

The difference is one of seeing the power of morality as a driving force within the power of philosophy. It takes it from being an abstract consideration in the relatively narrow confine of ethics, to seeing how it redounds into politics - and, for me personally, - back into epistemology. I'm harder pressed to articulate this clearly in this genre.

 

From "What Can One Do?" in The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. 1, No. 7  January 3, 1972

Today, most people are acutely aware of our cultural-ideological vacuum; they are anxious, confused, and groping for answers. Are you able to enlighten them?

 

Can you answer their questions? Can you offer them a consistent case? Do you know how to correct their errors? Are you immune from the fallout of the constant barrage aimed at the destruction of reason—and can you provide others with antimissile missiles? A political battle is merely a skirmish fought with muskets; a philosophical battle is a nuclear war.

 

The question of "who made the nuclear bomb possible" on Google presents Albert Einstein as a potential contender. This was accomplished albeit, despite the questionable philosophic principles Einstein held, according to Harriman and Peikoff.

 

I don't recall the particular song that resonated with the notion that a set of ideas imposed by force only lasts a generation or two - or until the imposer forgets what it was based upon - but an idea that is embraced or grasped by its peoples tends to endure for much longer.

 

This seems, to me, to make the difference between a political skirmish and the philosophical nuclear war for the mind, more tangible.

Edited February 5, 2015 by dream_weaver

[dream_weaver]

Another day of spiraling with my new found grasp of altruism. I thought I understood it before. Little did I know.