dream_weaver Posted July 6, 2020 Report Share Posted July 6, 2020 (edited) Ayn Rand argued it was a mistake to appeal to the irrational, that it was not possible to do so. As events unfold around the world, elements of the good and the bad can be found by those who look for them. While listening to Galt's Speech, the part where the world without mind was the product of the 'virtues' of those who had brought it about comes to mind. Causality had two attributes distinguished, one a subset of the other. Inanimate matter acts in accordance with its nature. Living organisms in accordance with theirs. The elegance of her dividing it as such set the organism's life as the standard, and the values to pursue a function of the entity's identity. She wrote as she described Galt's addressing of a mind, not a group. She used language as she described Dagny consideration of it as a tool of honor to be used as if one were under an oath of allegiance to reality. In this way, she was a flame-spotter, not in the sense that Galt did with Wyatt, Danagger, and Daniels—rather in the sense expounded on in The Romantic Manifesto: by how the reader responds to it. Recently @Boris Rarden wrote an assessment that captures an essence of this element. After the San Sebastian mines were nationalized by the Peoples Republic of Mexico, Francisco had "hid in plain sight" his part in the strike to Dagny. The ray-screen, later, provided a mirage akin to what was described in Galt's speech. Galt, in his speech, purportedly tells the reader what he told his fellow strikers. This further underscores what Rand puts forth, that Atlas Shrugged is/was written, per Miss Rand's esteem, to show what could and ought be. I think she may just have been onto something there. Edited July 6, 2020 by dream_weaver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.