The elitist myth & why it's damning to Objectivism.

[Dominique]

(EDIT: BTW I reject this: (that Eddie was excluded because Galt's Gulch was only for the best of the best/ that he wasn't good enough no matter how hard he tried)

as being terrible representations of Objectivism, and  the highly upsetting ideas which made this a touchy subject for me in the first place)

I want to start a new thread on this subject. Again, I have not found any other thread which addresses this, but of course if there is one I will be happy to move this there.

This attitude, specifically showcased in discussions about Eddie, seem to me to be one of the things anti-Objectivists harp on, and rightfully so.

I understand that in a meritocracy, some people are going to be naturally more able, and so they will be better able to produce, and better suited to "upper management" if you will of society. I do not however, think that this makes them more deserving as people of "Atlantis" so to speak. I think that a rational world would not condone envy of these more naturally gifted, but in order to do so, those who are as good as they are physically, naturally able to be must be regarded as such, and could not be deemed less important-or not-Atlases of this world. They are very much the Atlases, they are the support structure and buttresses on which the elite are better able to function. They are, in other words, just as indispensable.

Is there something wrong with my reasoning here? Does anyone think that meritocracy=aristocracy of the more naturally gifted? Is this a prevalent attitude of Objectivism? Because it is certainly a widely held misconception of Objectivism, but comments like this make me wonder if that is the underlying thought of Objectivism.

It makes me wonder if it is entirely a misconception, or an actual flaw of Objectivists, which I certainly hope it is not.

What are your thoughts on this matter?

[BurgessLau]

This attitude [...]

Is this a prevalent attitude of Objectivism? Because it is certainly a widely held misconception of Objectivism, but comments like this make me wonder if that is  the underlying thought of Objectivism.

It makes me wonder if it is entirely a misconception, or an actual flaw of Objectivists, which I certainly hope it is not.

You have raised many points worthy of discussion and criticism. (By "criticism" I mean pointing out an error and offering a superior alternative.) What I would like to do is clear some of the brush, so to speak, as a preliminary step.

First, I would suggest you need to clarify the issues. Are you investigating the atttitude that some students of Objectivism have -- or are you investigating the fundamental principles of Objectivism, which is a philosophy (not an attitude), the one that Ayn Rand created?

If it is one of those alternatives, then focus only on that. If it is both, then clearly separate the two issues and deal with them in the appropriate order, which probably, depending on your purpose, is the philosophy first and then the attitudes of some or all students of Objectivism.

Second, I would suggest that you clarify what you mean by "attitude." Defining the term "attitude" would help a lot in this discussion. What is the relationship of an "attitude" to a consciously and subconsciously held principle? With that issue cleared up, the discussion might be more productive.

Third, I would suggest you spell out your evidence for any claim that "Objectivists" (some, all, real, purported?) have a certain attitude or even hold a certain belief about less intelligent people. I hope, for example, that you are not drawing conclusions about "Objectivists" from participants in ObjectivismOnline. Not everyone here is an Objectivist, and even those who are vary widely in their understanding and absorption of the philosophy.

[JMeganSnow]

My understanding was that Eddie could not enter Atlantis because he had never identified his ideals except in vague terms; he was a good man and a hard worker because he loved the railroad and Dagny, not because he understood what they represented.

This is expressed through the novel by his tendency to think in terms of associations instead of concretes; his vague feelings of apprehension, his memories of the decayed oak; at no time did he understand what the battle was REALLY about and thus he chose to cling to his beloved railroad instead of his life when the former was doomed. He was given many, many chances to escape this fate but he rejected all of them.

The stories of Eddie and Cherryl, in my mind, illustrate what happens to decent people that avoid the effort of explicitly held philosophy; if there are no good people to help them avoid the pitfalls of philosophy then they are consumed by a monster they cannot identify or fight.

I find the idea that Objectivism advocates an "aristocracy" of the naturally gifted to be somewhat absurd; developing one's natural gifts takes so much painstaking effort and dedication that, at the end, the gifts matter much less than the effort; they make the difference between first and second place in a race, perhaps.

Any "aristocracy" of the naturally gifted amounts to collectivism; individuals "placed" in the positions their genetics, test scores, etc. dictated instead of what they wanted. On page 317 of OPAR Dr. Peikoff relates an example of what happens in this kind of situation, and why Objectivists can no more advocate it than they can advocate any other kind of collectiivism.

[dondigitalia]

I've thought a lot about the fate of Eddie Willers myself; particularly as it relates to your question. A good while back, I remember a thread titled "The Fate of Eddie Willers." I'm not sure exactly what the final outcome there was, but here is my own analysis.

First and foremost, Galt's expressly stated purpose was not to create a haven for morally proper men. It was to "stop the motor of the world." In regard to Taggart Transcontinental, was Willers the "motor?" No. He was the competent assistant to Dagny, who was the "motor" of Taggart Transcontinental.

(Observe Rand's use of the conept "motor," in a figurative sense, to represent the brains of the world here as well as when talking about Galt's "motor," in a concrete sense, as a symbol of man's mind.)

Keeping that in mind, why would Galt invite Eddie Willers into Galt's Gulch?

Also note the requirements the "men of ability" had to meet before being allowed to join the strikers. Specifically, the requirement of leaving everything behind; in order to join those in Galt's Gulch, one had to be able to completely sever all ties with the outside world, particularly in regard to one's career. Eddie Willers never demonstrated any readiness to do this—quite the opposite. He stated on many occasions that he would never give up Taggart Transcontinental, and stated his reasons. He upheld this consistently throught the novel, all the way up to the end. As reference I will point to his final scene, when the Comet breaks down. Here is where we see what happens to a well-meaning, moral man, who fails to recognize/correct a contradiction between his values. It's heartbreaking.

In light of all this, I think it's clear that Ayn Rand wasn't suggesting any type of meritocracy by Mr. Willers' non-invitation to Galt's Gulch. I've found her to be opposed to -ocracies in general.

I have observed the "attitude" you mentioned—occasionally on this forum. I think it's very sad. As Objectivists, we should be thrilled that others share our interest (regardless of any innate ability) and see it as a sign of hope for our future, not talk down to those who lack understanding or have yet to recognize or resolve their own internal contradictions. It's a very difficult thing to do, and part of the purpose of this website is to further Objectivism by helping others in this matter.

As my final comment, I will refer you to Miss Rand's article "The Age of Envy," in which she specifically addresses this type of haughtiness.

Edited for clarity and grammar—by me.

[Dominique]

First, I would suggest you need to clarify the issues. Are you investigating the atttitude that some students of Objectivism have -- or are you investigating the fundamental principles of Objectivism, which is a philosophy (not an attitude), the one that Ayn Rand created?

Both. I am asking if the attitudes I have seen accurately represent the logical consequence of Objectivism. I am asking what the logical end result of Objectivism is, and I want to dispel the misinterpretations, if in fact they are (misinterpretations).

If it is one of those alternatives, then focus only on that. If it is both, then clearly separate the two issues and deal with them in the appropriate order, which probably, depending on your purpose, is the philosophy first and then the attitudes of some or all students of Objectivism.

OK. But I have trouble separating them. Perhaps it is my subjectivist roots. It matters to me what people's attitudes are in the interpretation of Objectivism, because that is what they are spreading to those who have no idea of Objectivism, and who might reject it out of hand for this reason.

Second, I would suggest that you clarify what you mean by "attitude." Defining the term "attitude" would help a lot in this discussion. What is the relationship of an "attitude" to a consciously and subconsciously held principle? With that issue cleared up, the discussion might be more productive.

Going solely on my own personal meaning of the term- I would (Edit)say "commonly held belief" (the word "pervasive"-comes to mind). I wonder if it is subconciously held, or if it is held conciously. It makes a difference to me as it does to you, but that's why I ask this question, I don't have the answer. I think it might be productive to flush out those that hold it conciously, and to get their reason, and for those who may hold it subconciously, to realize and question it.

Third, I would suggest you spell out your evidence for any claim that "Objectivists" (some, all, real, purported?) have a certain attitude or even hold a certain belief about less intelligent people. I hope, for example, that you are not drawing conclusions about "Objectivists" from participants in ObjectivismOnline. Not everyone here is an Objectivist, and even those who are vary widely in their understanding and absorption of the philosophy.

I understand that people have many interpretations of Objectivism, but I haven't seen any writing from ARI (yet) that addresses this. I do mean people of this forum, because I think we have some of the brightest up and coming"Objectivists" here, whatever their level of comprehension being (myself included, with an as of yet basic comprehension but not full integration) and I'd like to discuss this, for the purpose of dispelling myths, as I stated, and for clarifying the issue for myself. I personally have doubts as to whether "actual Objectivists" (meaning to me fully integrated) hold this belief. I don't think from my basic understanding that it is possible to be fully integrated and to hold this belief, but I am not experienced enough to be sure, so I would like to discuss it.

Was that clearer? Or did I just say the same vague things all over again?

[Dominique]

On page 317 of OPAR Dr. Peikoff relates an example of what happens in this kind of situation, and why Objectivists can no more advocate it than they can advocate any other kind of collectiivism.

Thank you, I haven't gotten to that part yet. I will read it ASAP.

[Dominique]

First and foremost, Galt's expressly stated purpose was not to create a haven for morally proper men. It was to "stop the motor of the world." In regard to Taggart Transcontinental, was Willers the "motor?" No. He was the competent assistant to Dagny, who was the "motor" of Taggart Transcontinental.

(Observe Rand's use of the cocnept "motor," in a figurative sense, to represent the brains of the world here as well as when talking about Galt's "motor," in a concrete sense, as a symbol of man's mind.)

Keeping that in mind, why would Galt invite Eddie Willers into Galt's Gulch?

But this is exactly what I mean. I think he was the "motor" He was just a gear perhaps and not the spark plug. This is the start of the kind of reasoning which leads to the ideas I mention above.

Eddie Willers never demonstrated any readiness to do this—quite the opposite. He stated on many occasions that he would never give up Taggart Transcontinental, and stated his reasons. He upheld this consistently throught the novel, all the way up to the end. As reference I will point to his final scene, when the Comet breaks down. Here is where we see what happens to a well-meaning, moral man, who fails to recognize/correct a contradiction between his values. It's heartbreaking.

Right, so you realize the final outcome, but what if he hadn't refused, would he have been allowed-in your opinion?

As my final comment, I will refer you to Miss Rand's article "The Age of Envy," in which she specifically addresses this type of haughtiness.

I think I've read it, but I'll re-read it, with this in mind. Is it in TVOR? Is it the one that details "hatred of the good for being the good"?

(Edit to fix boxes)

[Capitalism Forever]

Was that clearer? Or did I just say the same vague things all over again? 

Let me try and guess what you are asking.

If the question is, "Are honest but not-too-successful people worse off in an ideal Objectivist society than they are in the U.S. today?" then the answer is definitely no. Everyone is better off under capitalism.

If the question is, "How much respect do honest but not-too-successful people deserve according to Objectivism?" then my answer would be that they deserve an amount of respect for being honest, but they have yet to deserve their share of respect for being successful.

If the question is, "Will there be a very narrow and exclusive elite of achievers in an ideal Objectivist society?" then let me propose that the very purpose of spreading Objectivism is to widen that elite--and that the extent to which a society can in fact be called an Objectivist one depends on the extent of that "elite" !

[Edited to correct typo. Guess this is not my day to make it into the elite! ]

Edited February 5, 2005 by Capitalism Forever

[dondigitalia]

But this is exactly what I mean. I think he was the "motor" He was just a gear perhaps and not the spark plug. This is the start of the kind of reasoning which leads to the ideas I mention above.

I agree that he was an intregal part of the "machine," but not the "motor." In Dagny's absence, he may have stepped up to fill her shoes... but that's irrelevant, because the story ended before that could happen.

Right, so you realize the final outcome, but what if he hadn't refused, would he have been allowed-in your opinion?

If it were Dave's Gulch, I'd welcome him with open arms. But it wasn't. It was Galt's ultimate decision, and Galt's values at stake. John Galt owed no debt to Eddie. Had Eddie decided to give it all up and come along, he very well may have been allowed in. But the point is that he had no inherent right to be there. The right of passage belonged to two men: John Galt, as the organizer of the strike, and Midas Mulligan, as the owner of the valley. Had either of them seen a reason that Eddie Willer's inclusion was in conflict to one of their values, then it would be wrong for them to allow him in. I suspect though, that in regard to his competence as Dagny's assistant, and in regard to all of the values he held, Mr. Willers would have been allowed in Galt's Gulch were he able to achieve the feat of conflict-resolution which all of the other invitees were able to accomplish.

I think that, if you see evidience of Rand's advocacy of a meritocracy, you are looking a little to hard. Ayn Rand didn't write her books so that you needed a secret decoder ring to figure out what she meant. Whichever is the clearest, most obvious meaning in her books, is probably the one she intended you to take.

I think I've read it, but I'll re-read it, with this in mind. Is it in  TVOR? Is it the one that details "hatred of the good for being the good"?

(Edit to fix boxes)

That is the article, although it isn't in TVOS (I think that's what you meant); it is in TNL & ROTP.

[Capitalism Forever]

Oh, and BTW, I corrected the spelling in the title. It is "elitist," not "elitest."

[Dominique]

Let me try and guess what you are asking.

If the question is,  "Are honest but not-too-successful people worse off in an ideal Objectivist society than they are in the U.S. today?" then the answer is definitely no. Everyone is better off under capitalism.

If the question is,  "How much respect do honest but not-too-successful people deserve according to Objectivism?" then my answer would be that they deserve an amount of respect for being honest, but they have yet to deserve their share of respect for being successful.

If the question is,  "Will there be a very narrow and exclusive elite of achievers in an ideal Objectivist society?" then let me propose that the very purpose of spreading Objectivism is to widen that elite--and that the extent to which is a society can in fact be called an Objectivist one depends on the extent of that "elite" !

Thank You, I think you got the point. There is still a little more discussing I want to do, but I'll come back to it when I can be clearer.

[Dominique]

I agree that he was an intregal part of the "machine," but not the "motor."

OK, but what does the "motor" run on? Only spark plugs? Or aren't gears integral?

But the point is that he had no inherent right to be there.

No, but what is the morality of people who would have purposefully not included him because he was "only a gear and not a spark plug". (hypothetically speaking- I'm only using Willers as an example of the larger issue)

The right of passage belonged to two men: John Galt, as the organizer of the strike, and Midas Mulligan, as the owner of the valley. Had either of them seen a reason that Eddie Willer's inclusion was in conflict to one of their values, then it would be wrong for them to allow him in.

That's the question at hand. Was it in conflict to their values?

I suspect though, that in regard to his competence as Dagny's assistant, and in regard to all of the values he held, Mr. Willers would have been allowed in Galt's Gulch were he able to achieve the feat of conflict-resolution which all of the other invitees were able to accomplish.

So we agree, but you are not understanding that what bothers me is this lapse of continuous understanding of their motivation.

That is the article, although it isn't in TVOS (I think that's what you meant); it is in TNL & ROTP.

No I meant The Voice Of Reason. And I'm not sure of your abbreviations. Sorry, can you spell them out for me?

[Durandal]

I don't recall the exact quote -- perhaps someone can help me out on this -- in Atlas Shrugged. Dagny says something to Eddie about taking over, stepping up, meeting a challenge, etc., and he responds with something like (paraphrasing) "Oh, I could never do anything like that Dagny, I couldn't do what you do..."

And Ayn Rand made a point of this paragraph, because Dagny was disappointed. When it came down to it, Eddie flat out said he didn't think he was good enough. Did anyone else in Galt's Gulch ever say that?

Again, if somebody else better remembers the quote, please post it.

[Dominique]

Oh, and BTW, I corrected the spelling in the title. It is "elitist," not "elitest."

Thanks my little spell checker

I guess I ought to type slower, I've been a little hasty today. I'm sorry.

[Capitalism Forever]

Thanks my little spell checker  

LOL, you should have seen me when I read that!

I guess I ought to type slower, I've been a little hasty today. I'm sorry.

Well, I just noticed that I made my own mistake in my post above. I'll have to try harder if I want to out-elite you.

[JMeganSnow]

Dominique, I think that the attitude you've noticed (and I've certainly exhibited) is largely the difference between "teaching" and "discussing".

When your purpose is to inform someone about something (to teach them) you are tolerant of their ignorance, you encourage questions, you go to great lengths to identify context so that opportunities for misunderstanding are minimalized, etc. In a teaching context the movement of ideas is one-sided; one person contributes information and the other thinks (or doesn't think) about it.

When, instead, your purpose is to discuss something you assume a certain amount of mutual context and that the other participants have roughly similar levels of understanding. The information flow is two-sided or many-sided, with all participants expected to contribute to enhancing the understanding of all other participants.

I could not discuss Objectivism with Ayn Rand or Leonard Peikoff, (or, quite probably, with any of the intellectuals listed on the Home Page of this site and even some of the people here.) I could ask questions and consider their answers, but I would not be contributing to their understanding: the movement of ideas would be entirely one-sided.

Conversations can segue between "teaching" and "discussing" (along with various other states, such as "debating" or "joking") and often do as no one has such complete mastery of all subjects as to be unable to learn something new.

Btw: "debating" I think is best conducted when you have similar levels of understanding but lack the shared context; the debate process is to establish shared context.

In my mind, discussing is more fun than teaching and more productive; it is hard to go to tremendous effort to explain something only to watch your erstwhile pupil discard everything you've said. Besides, I'm not very good at teaching, but I can discuss with the best of them.

Trouble can arise, though, in various situations where the line between teaching and discussing is not clear. If, unbeknownst to you, your discussion partners have insufficient knowledge or shared context you cannot discuss with them. You might be able to teach them or debate with them but you cannot discuss.

Unfortunately people tend to become offended if you inform them that they lack the necessary understanding to participate in a discussion. In my experience some Objectivists (me, to name one example) tend to be extremely harsh towards anyone that won't admit this fact and insists that their arbitrary views be considered on the same level with views established by facts and examples.

This is generally considered to be "elitist" by people who are used to presenting their views, whatever they may be, as equal to those of the greatest philosophers.

This is just my thinking, though, I'm not going to say this is definitely correct, it's what I think.

[JMeganSnow]

Oops, I forgot to indicate why I think Objectivists in particular are harsh: because we know that absolutes exist and we are trying to establish them in the interests of trying to decide what actions are required to live our lives; we are not, um, "wanking" when we discuss, we are focused and purpose-driven.

[dondigitalia]

OK, but what does the "motor" run on? Only spark plugs? Or aren't gears integral?

The "gears and spark plugs," are of course necessary in any society. My point wasn't that they should be discounted. My point was that you seem to be looking at Galt's actions from the wrong angle. You seem to be taking the creation of Galt's Gulch as his primary goal, with depriving the world of its brains as a side-effect. Flip them around, and you get a completely different perspective.

John Galt was not out to save the mend of the mind. He was destroy an evil society, so that he could rebuild a proper one. Eddie Willers' inclusion or non-inclusion is irrelevant to John Galt's primary purpose.

No, but what is the morality of people who would have purposefully not included him because he was "only a gear and not a spark plug". (hypothetically speaking- I'm only using Willers as an example of the larger issue)

I don't think there was any purposeful non-inclusion. I doubt Willers' presence in Galt's Gulch (provided he were able to resolve his conflicts) would have made any difference. Eddie Willers was never forbidden entry to Galt's Gulch. Neither was he one of the "elite" Galt specifically went out to recruit. Just because Galt did not recruit him, doesn't mean he would not have been allowed in (point of reference: Reardan's secretary).

That's the question at hand. Was it in conflict to their values?

Not any of the values we see in Atlas Shrugged. Since they are fictional characters, we can assume these are the only values relevant to any decisions they make in the book; denying Eddie Willers admittance to the Gulch is not one of these decision. If they were real people, only they are qualified to determine what lies in accordance or opposition with their own values. In other words: Who the hell knows?

So we agree, but you are not understanding that what bothers me is this lapse of continuous understanding of their motivation.

I think I do understand now. And to put it as clearly as I can. Motivation is applicable only to deliberate human actions, and it is only applicable to those who perform the action. The only deliberate action which kept Eddie Willers out of Galt's Gulch was his own. Therefore, the only motivation to be found is on the part of Mr. Willers'. His motivation for deciding to remain outside of Galt's Gulch was the value which Taggart Transcontinental held for him. Any attempt to find a motivation on Galt's part will fail; it is an attempt to find motivation based on non-action, which will inevitably lead to a contradiction,

Does that help at all?

No I meant The Voice Of Reason. And I'm not sure of your abbreviations. Sorry, can you spell them out for me?

Oh, ok. It's not in The Voice of Reason. It is in The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution and Return of the Primitive, which are basically the same book. ROTP has a few additional essays added.

[Bryan]

OK, but what does the "motor" run on? Only spark plugs? Or aren't gears integral?

Perhaps motor isn't the proper analogy. Obviously, Dagny could not run TT alone, but she was the sole reason that it did not fail. If Eddie had left, TT could have continued, if Dagny left, it could not. Eddie was probably the second most important person and the only person that Dagny fully trusted that worked there.

Another angle of why Galt would have not taken Eddie, even if Eddie met all the other qualifications, was because he was Galt's personal spy on Dagny. If you recall all the passages where Galt and Eddie talk in the cafeteria, it flows as if you were listening to one side of a phone conversation. It doesn't show what Galt is asking Eddie, but it shows Eddie's responses. Most of the responses directly pertain to Dagny or to key TT operations. There is one part where Eddie tells Galt that Ben Nealy is the best contractor in the country and they couldn't complete the John Galt Line without him, a few days later he disappears.

As far as the Objectivist "view" on people who are not gifted or even of below average intelligence, there is nothing specifically in the philosophy that favors genetic ability over genetic mediocrity. Anyone can live as an Objectivist, no matter what ability or intelligence level.

The key Objectivists virtues are rationality, productiveness, and pride. If someone is fully committed to reason, they are completely honest with themselves about their own abilities and limitations. If they produce at their fullest capacity (no matter what that capacity is) they will derive self-esteem and live a happy life.

[JMeganSnow]

The key Objectivists virtues are rationality, productiveness, and pride.  If someone is fully committed to reason, they are completely honest with themselves about their own abilities and limitations.  If they produce at their fullest capacity (no matter what that capacity is) they will derive self-esteem and live a happy life.

Rationality is the key virtue. Independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, and pride are the six derivative virtues.

I may be a loon but I love that idea.

[EC]

I was the one who stated Willers was not one of the "best of the best", and he was not.

He was essentially rational and therefore mostly moral. But he had contradictions. About TT and Dagny. He didn't always think in concretes and precisely enough.

To enlarge the scope of my comments, many people are rational and essentially moral but they to have contradictions. The people who think more rationally and have less contradictions are *objectively* better people. This should be acknowledged. Doing so is not being "elitist", but instead accepting reality.

Any person with a properly functioning brain can *choose* to live by a rational philosophy and resolve their contradictions. If they do this then they to become part of your "elite". And this should be honored because they objectively have become a better person.

There are "cogs in the machine" out there who like Willers are essentially rational and good people, but they can choose to become an elite any time they want if they explicitly apply the correct philosophy. Your IQ (whatever it happens to be) does not define you, but instead your application of your reason and your conformity to reality does,

What I saying is good men like Willers should be honored for their good traits, but if they choose not to be the best and fully use their rationality they are not yet part of the "best of the best". But at any time they can choose to be. And the correct "attitude" should be if and when that happens it should then be honored for the virtue that it is.

[plaintext]

OK, but what does the "motor" run on? Only spark plugs? Or aren't gears integral?

In the case of Eddie and Dagny, it was not an issue of two irreplaceable

parts of a team.

Dagny could easily have done Eddie's job. Eddie could not have done Dagny's.

[AisA]

I was the one who stated Willers was not one of the "best of the best", and he was not.

He was essentially rational and therefore mostly moral. But he had contradictions. About TT and Dagny. He didn't always think in concretes and precisely enough.

Eric, can you give some examples of Eddie's contradictions? He experienced conflict, for example the conflict between his love for Dagny and his determination never to let her know of it, but I cannot recall him consciously holding contradictory positions or ideas.

[Free Capitalist]

Dominique, Galt had no duty to take Eddie in, just because he's a likable character. Gulch is not a place for all the likable characters to go to; that's not its point.

Oh and by the way, someone earlier said that Galt's purpose was to destroy the collectivist society, and that's flat out false. As he said himself, that was not his goal, what he wanted to do was to save the producers from injustice by giving them another place to exist, where they could do so without being abused. Galt was not driven by negatives, only positives.

So back the issue at hand, I like the motor metaphor. Dagny was a motor spark, abused by the world in proportion to her ability, and Eddie was just a nameless gear, easily replaceable and generally irrelevant (though likable and endearing). Men like him were to be found very often even during the timeframe of the book, courageous men struggling to go on. If Galt invited them all in, the Gulch could not serve as a hiding place anymore. He was forced to leave them out, which was a hard decision undoubtedly, but a necessary one.

As AR said, Eddie had to be left behind, in order to show to the reader what happens to an average good man in a bad world. He is still abused like the best of them, but there's too many of him to save, so there's no choice but to leave him to suffer the consequences of the choices he (unwittingly) and the rest (wittingly) made. Because, remember, he was part of the problem.

But in regard to the concept of "Objectivist elitism", the book endorses no such thing. It is a book of fiction, with stylized characters and details all aimed for the single task of portraying AR's vision of an ideal man. Take the book to heart and learn all of it's wisdom, but don't read it too closely, or you'll end up smoking cigarettes and sitting slouched in your chair.

[EC]

Eric, can you give some examples of Eddie's contradictions?  He experienced conflict, for example the conflict between his love for Dagny and his determination never to let her know of it, but I cannot recall him consciously holding contradictory positions or ideas.

Your example is a contradiction. He chose to contradict the reality of his love for Dagny. He was contradicting reality itself there by never acting on his love. The worst that could have happened is she could have shot him down. His contradictions in regards to TT were similar to Dagny's that if kept working hard he could help "make" the railroad work under all the regulations. And he was contradicting reality when he refused to see that couldn't work. That he evaded thinking about these things and/or acting on them is a major contradiction to reality not simply conflict.

And what would the term conflict mean if not conflict with reality, i.e., contradictions to reality.