Francisco and Rearden saving a furnace scene.

[Ranil]

I'm currently re-reading Atlas Shrugged, which has been an absolute pleasure. Amazing how many little details you pick up the second time around that hint to its ending.

But one thing that still has me somewhat puzzled is this - in the scene where Francisco visits Rearden at the steel mills for the first time, there is an emergency, and both men work to plug a hole using clay. Francisco nearly dies.

Now, considering the reason why Francisco came to visit Rearden in the first place (i.e. to convince him to 'shrug'), why did he spend so much effort trying to save Rearden's mills? Was it in order to get Rearden's trust?

[JMeganSnow]

No, this was not a calculated action on Francisco's part, it was one of the times in the book when he was overcome by his own abundant energy and capability. There are a few other examples of it; like when he yells to Dagny, "My love, I can't!". It demonstrates just how hard the fight was for him.

When you're competent, this horrible urge to fix things comes over you sometimes, even when you know you'll only make things harder on yourself for doing so. Frankly, given his love for Rearden, I don't think he could have acted any other way. So, of course, he didn't.

[Ranil]

Yes, you're right. In the scene, when they first realise that something is wrong, Francisco acts like a bullet coming out of the barrel of a gun. I wouldn't say that he reacted 'instinctively', but it was *almost* something like it.

[Marty McFly]

I'm currently re-reading Atlas Shrugged, which has been an absolute pleasure. Amazing how many little details you pick up the second time around that hint to its ending.

But one thing that still has me somewhat puzzled is this - in the scene where Francisco visits Rearden at the steel mills for the first time, there is an emergency, and both men work to plug a hole using clay. Francisco nearly dies.

Now, considering the reason why Francisco came to visit Rearden in the first place (i.e. to convince him to 'shrug'), why did he spend so much effort trying to save Rearden's mills? Was it in order to get Rearden's trust?

Oh..! I never saw it as a puzzle. this was just a way for Ayn Rand to make sure Rearden doesn't give up *just yet* the story still has to continue... as of Fransisco's reaction? This is the way people like him react in an emergancy, it's the way they're built. besides, Francisco did not yet get a chance to tell Rearden everything, he did not yet get a chance to see how Rearden will take it. If he would have sat back and watched Rearden save his own furnace, what would it have accomplished? Rearden would never have listened to him after that (the same goes to when Dagny heard about the Taggart Tunnel *just* as Fransicso was going to convince her to "shrug" did she even listen to him after that? she forgot his existance! This is the natural reaction of The Doers in a state of emergency.

[Antonio]

No, this was not a calculated action on Francisco's part, it was one of the times in the book when he was overcome by his own abundant energy and capability. There are a few other examples of it; like when he yells to Dagny, "My love, I can't!". It demonstrates just how hard the fight was for him.

When you're competent, this horrible urge to fix things comes over you sometimes, even when you know you'll only make things harder on yourself for doing so. Frankly, given his love for Rearden, I don't think he could have acted any other way. So, of course, he didn't.

This is quite right. This happens to me all the time. And it is frustrating because I am a journalist, an editor at a small-to-mid-sized daily paper, and I have loved newspapers since I was 8-years-old. But as you no doubt already know, by liberal or statist media brethren far, far outnumber those who think like me. This affliction also plagues my immediate editor, who is now reading Atlas Shrugged for the first time and is finding it validates almost everything he has valued in his life, particularly on issues relating to work ethics, decisionmaking and common sense. We both fix things here all the time, and many of those times we make things harder on ourselves.

The frustration for me is that I wonder, and my fellow rational editor does too, whether we are just perpetually shooting ourselves in the foot. Are we really doing what we love, and doing it well because we know that it is right? Or are we just helping a cause and an industry most of whose membership stands against everything we believe? I think about journalists such as John Stossel who are fighting the good fight, but psychologically this struggle can be madenning.

[Febod]

The frustration for me is that I wonder, and my fellow rational editor does too, whether we are just perpetually shooting ourselves in the foot. Are we really doing what we love, and doing it well because we know that it is right? Or are we just helping a cause and an industry most of whose membership stands against everything we believe? I think about journalists such as John Stossel who are fighting the good fight, but psychologically this struggle can be madenning.

How could you be helping the cause of people who disagree if you stand up for yourself and voice the truth? People who "fight the good fight" should do it because they want to do it, not because they are hell-bent on changing the way people think or making the world a better place.

Understand that evil exists, but also understand that it's trivial, and it's best not to let it enter your psychological space.

[Antonio]

How could you be helping the cause of people who disagree if you stand up for yourself and voice the truth? People who "fight the good fight" should do it because they want to do it, not because they are hell-bent on changing the way people think or making the world a better place.

Understand that evil exists, but also understand that it's trivial, and it's best not to let it enter your psychological space.

That's provocative. Funny thing is, I have always understood evil exists and I can handle it well on an individual basis - such as when we were both assistant editors (myself and the Atlas-reading editor who's now my superior) and we had a terrible editor who was basically like James Taggart - a faker who usually did not deserve the positions accorded him or the acclaim he'd receive. A colleague of mine never understood how it was that I had the discipline to continue to come into work every day, do my work well and enjoy it. My consistent position, as it has been in cases like this before, was that I would not allow someone who I did not respect or value to control my emotional or intellectual response. In essence, he's lower than me and I will not be low like him. I briefly allowed it to emotionally overtake me - never gain. Now he's gone.

But I sometimes have a harder time dealing with this kind of evil when I am in the midst of a collective of it. At any given time I could be prompted to state a political or philosophical position - not unheard of in a newsroom - and to say I would be outnumbered is an understatement. And journalists can be very vicious folks when they get together for a fight. And unlike the case where I had to deal with an evil individual, I am allowing the collective to enter my psychological space. I had never thought of it that way.

So am I right to fight the good fight, continue to be a newspaper editor, because this is the work I love, and believe, despite its warts, that I am part of an institution integral to freedom? Being a do-er, in the way Francisco and Rearden were in this scene of Atlas, for some reason in those moments my disdane for my media brethren is cast aside.

Here's a thought: Am I right in concluding that when I wander in to pondering whether I am helping evil or helping advance the leftist cause, am I betraying my own selfish needs by, in essence, extending my concern beyond my personal needs and my hapiness?

[Febod]

Here's a thought: Am I right in concluding that when I wander in to pondering whether I am helping evil or helping advance the leftist cause, am I betraying my own selfish needs by, in essence, extending my concern beyond my personal needs and my hapiness?

I think this is a false dichotomy. Fulfilling your own selfish needs would never help advance a leftist cause. But you are betraying yourself when you focus on doing good for humanity, serving a higher purpose, and the like. Do what you love, and if others are affected positively from it, then that's just icing on the cake.

Also, AS was a great book, and the idea of the motive force going on strike is valuable within the context of the book because it demonstrates an important point, but it's not something we should concern ourselves with actually doing. But then again, not concerning yourself with the needs of others is shrugging, in a way. Just be sure you don't have a problem waiting tables the rest of your life, and writing on the side.

[aequalsa]

I think this is a false dichotomy. Fulfilling your own selfish needs would never help advance a leftist cause. But you are betraying yourself when you focus on doing good for humanity, serving a higher purpose, and the like. Do what you love, and if others are affected positively from it, then that's just icing on the cake.

Also, AS was a great book, and the idea of the motive force going on strike is valuable within the context of the book because it demonstrates an important point, but it's not something we should concern ourselves with actually doing. But then again, not concerning yourself with the needs of others is shrugging, in a way. Just be sure you don't have a problem waiting tables the rest of your life, and writing on the side.

Hi everyone,

I disagree that one should never shrug. There are circumstances where it's appropriate and possibly the only way to improve the circumstance.

As an example, several years ago when I was working for someone else(in construction), I was put under a foreman with far less experience and knowledge then myself(he was in a relationship with the daughter of the boss which seemed to be how he got the position). So on jobs he would constantly ask me what we should do with every particualr problem. For about a week, I ran the job for him get more and more irritated that I was making this guy look good. So I decided to shrug(in a small way). He'd ask "what do you think we should do here?" to which I'd respond as sincerely as possible "I dont know...what do you think we should do?". And then we would sit there for 30 minutes 'trying to figure it out'.

Short end to the story, the job came to a screeching halt. The boss brouhgt me into his office and asked what was going on out there. I told him he should "ask his foreman". A few weeks later I was one.

So in this particular case I was acting directly to help people live dishonestly. It took great restraint to sit there and watch something be done wrong, but it wasn't my responsibility that was being shirked. I wasn't being paid to be a foreman, there was going to be no recognition of my efforts by superiors, and really no positive outcome for me.

For me, going on strike, was 'valuable for the context of' my life. Strikes are temporary refusals to work to let another come to a direct understanding of your value to them. Very effective, especially if you know exactly what your value is.

Oh, btw, great post megan. Dead-on.

Edited October 21, 2006 by aequalsa

[Ifat Glassman]

So in this particular case I was acting directly to help people live dishonestly. It took great restraint to sit there and watch something be done wrong, but it wasn't my responsibility that was being shirked. I wasn't being paid to be a foreman, there was going to be no recognition of my efforts by superiors, and really no positive outcome for me.

For me, going on strike, was 'valuable for the context of' my life. Strikes are temporary refusals to work to let another come to a direct understanding of your value to them. Very effective, especially if you know exactly what your value is.

It's because people did not shrug in small ways* that they later had to shrug big time. By not shrugging in small* ways, they taught the looters that they can get away with exploiting, and it only got worse as generations progressed.

This is why as Objectivists we MUST shrug, because we know better, and the extent of shrugging depends on the situation.

* small in comparison to completely avoiding giving any value to the world (like the strike on Atlas Shrugged)

[Olex]

...Just be sure you don't have a problem waiting tables the rest of your life, and writing on the side.

What do you mean by this?

[Febod]

I disagree that one should never shrug. There are circumstances where it's appropriate and possibly the only way to improve the circumstance.

Okay, you're right that there are some instances when shrugging is the right thing to do. These situations, like yours, can be summed up by the phrase, "don't take any crap from anyone." People at your job crossed a boundary that they shouldn't have crossed, and you let them know by going on strike. However, shrugging on a grand scale to change the country would be ineffective. Education is the only means to that end.

What do you mean by this?

When you don't take crap from anyone, you could possibly be fired. As a result, you might be temporary out of a job in your chosen field. Manual labor or some other low-status job is your only option here. See Roark and the quarry.