Joynewyeary Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 Certainly, John Galt's achievements are more admirable than Eddie Willers' achievements. Imagine a version of Atlas Shrugged in which Eddie Willers, although having no more capability than the Eddie Willers in the original version, made different choices. For example, imagine a version of the novel in which Eddie Willers applied more effort and thought more carefully before making decisions. Would it be realistic for Eddie Willers to then achieve as much as John Galt achieved? If it would not be realistic, then is it possible that, as a moral being, Eddie Willers was just as admirable as John Galt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 Check this earlier thread (link) for a related discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunterrose Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 Would it be realistic for Eddie Willers to then achieve as much as John Galt achieved? If it would not be realistic, then is it possible that, as a moral being, Eddie Willers was just as admirable as John Galt? IMO if Eddie had more scientific achievements that Galt, he still wouldn't be as admirable - primarily because he was philosophically "decent," but not philosophically ideal. Galt was admirable from the philosophical standpoint; the engine was secondary. I'd even go so far as to say that Galt wasn't ideal because he made the (striking/sanction of the victim) discovery, but because of his unceasing adherence to reality. Not sure if that answers the question Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 Certainly, John Galt's achievements are more admirable than Eddie Willers' achievements. Imagine a version of Atlas Shrugged in which Eddie Willers, although having no more capability than the Eddie Willers in the original version, made different choices. For example, imagine a version of the novel in which Eddie Willers applied more effort and thought more carefully before making decisions. Would it be realistic for Eddie Willers to then achieve as much as John Galt achieved? If it would not be realistic, then is it possible that, as a moral being, Eddie Willers was just as admirable as John Galt? You are damn right about John! An alternate Eddie Willers that acheived at Galts level would sort of defeat the purpose would it not? I thought that the point of the Eddie character was to demonstrate the nature of the honest average-man. It take a stronger philosophical foundation than Eddie has for him to acheive at Galts level, which is what Miss Rand wanted Eddie not to have. Morality on its own cannot provide you with what you need to build engines, you need all the other philosophical concepts like epistemology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrs Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 ... imagine a version of ["Atlas Shrugged"] in which Eddie Willers applied more effort and thought more carefully before making decisions. Would it be realistic for Eddie Willers to then achieve as much as John Galt achieved? Every thing is something specific; and it acts according to its nature. Eddie Willers is something specific; and he acts according to his nature. If he acted in a different way, then he would not be Eddie Willers. If it would not be realistic, then is it possible that, as a moral being, Eddie Willers was just as admirable as John Galt? Suppose there are two people who are equally moral in their choices, but one achieves more because he has a greater ability. Then I think that the one who has achieved more deserves greater admiration. It is the results which matter, i.e. life matters. So anything which contributes to success is admirable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pidge Posted March 17, 2022 Report Share Posted March 17, 2022 On 10/2/2005 at 11:48 PM, jrs said: Every thing is something specific; and it acts according to its nature. Eddie Willers is something specific; and he acts according to his nature. If he acted in a different way, then he would not be Eddie Willers. Suppose there are two people who are equally moral in their choices, but one achieves more because he has a greater ability. Then I think that the one who has achieved more deserves greater admiration. It is the results which matter, i.e. life matters. So anything which contributes to success is admirable. Yes. I was thinking about what made Eddie different from the others, and basically Eddie's role is to help others achieve. He sees their goals and doesn't understand why others wouldn't want to have a better world. He excels at being an upstanding background character. While he may not have an invention of his own he's pursuing, he wants a world in which those inventions are celebrated. Rather (especially at the beginning) he sees this as a world where this is already the case. 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.