On Akstons reason to strike

Aesthetics Ayn Rand Book Club
1

“I quit and joined and went on strike,” said Hugh Alston, “because I couldn’t share my profession with men who claim that the qualification of an intellectual consists of denying the existence of the intellect. People would not employ a plumber who’d attempt to prove his professional excellence by asserting that there’s no such thing as plumbing -but, apparently, the same standard s of caution are not considered necessary in regards to philosophers. I learned from my own pupil,however,that it was I who made this possible. When thinkers accept those who deny the existence of thinking, as fellow thinkers of a different school of thought- it is they who achieve the destruction of the mind. They grant the enemy’s basic premise…”

What he goes on to say about Dr. Pritchett after that, why didn’t he fire off such intellectual ammo at him, et al., in this field then, instead of dropping all such weaponry and leaving the field altogether to them making it even more possible?

He couldn’t share his profession, so he left it to them completely?

Because of his zero tolerance, he surrendered it completely?

Roark the dynamiter
Roark the dynamiter
2

I just laughed heartily at the plumber line. I read AS before I became a plumber. That line was much more thoroughly enjoyable this time around.

As for the question, isn’t “surrendered it completely” a false statement? True he surrendered his profession in the “real” world, but isn’t that only because of the promise of resuming it in the Gulch? Isn’t it the same for all of the strikers? Were it not for Galt, wouldn’t most of them have kept working in a world that hated them?

Edit: Obviously, we can’t predict what fictional characters would do. Only their creator could. It just seemed to me that they abandoned their businesses only after they knew there was an alternative.

3

I just laughed heartily at the plumber line. I read AS before I became a plumber. That line was much more thoroughly enjoyable this time around.

As for the question, isn’t “surrendered it completely” a false statement? True he surrendered his profession in the “real” world, but isn’t that only because of the promise of resuming it in the Gulch? Isn’t it the same for all of the strikers? Were it not for Galt, wouldn’t most of them have kept working in a world that hated them.

And isnt that fantastic of fiction, it can show the ought, Galt created by way of the gulch not an alternative of reality, but an addition to reality. In the novel the Gulch exists.

4

This is not special to Akston. Each striker left when he decided that the field he worked in was too corrupt to save. They all tried lesser measures and found them to be unsuccessful. He would have tried talking sense into Pritchett; his experiences would have been part of what convinced him that it was time to give up. We see in detail how hard Taggart and Rearden fight before joining, and we infer the corresponding efforts that the others made.

5

Were it not for Galt, wouldn’t most of them have kept working in a world that hated them?

Perhaps, or kept working in a different field, or retired and lived off money they already had, tried to change people’s minds with intellectual ammo and the like.

Galt got to them when he thought they were at a certain point where he could convince them to join his strike, as he was after all a “walking delegate” of the strike. They had a place to go, that is very important to have.

Akston left without so much as any kind of intellectual fight against them, not a single word in opposition to those others in his profession.

6

And isnt that fantastic of fiction, it can show the ought, Galt created by way of the gulch not an alternative of reality, but an addition to reality. In the novel the Gulch exists.

Galt’s Gulch exists in the real world… but you have to build it.

7

It occurs to me that the Strikers did more than leave the country to fall into ruin. They formed a community so they could continue to function, but this time in the company of people they could admire, trust and rely on to produce value to trade for value produced. They left a big bad world and continued their existence in a smaller better world.

ruveyn1

8

It occurs to me that the Strikers did more than leave the country to fall into ruin. They formed a community so they could continue to function, but this time in the company of people they could admire, trust and rely on to produce value to trade for value produced. They left a big bad world and continued their existence in a smaller better world.

ruveyn1

I tell you, that already exists in this world…

There are American Capitalist producers who exclusively deal with others who share their business ethics. To find them, all you need to do is to first become one. Uphold the trust of others who are worthy of your trust. That is the only way to enter “Galt’s Gulch”.

9

It occurs to me that the Strikers did more than leave the country to fall into ruin.

I am not convinced the country at the time was going to ruin when Galt initially went on strike.

Some strikers we’re active destroyers, Frisco and Ragnar in particular were.

10

I am not convinced the country at the time was going to ruin when Galt initially went on strike.

Some strikers we’re active destroyers, Frisco and Ragnar in particular were.

Do you think that Ragnar violated the Objectivist tenet of not initiating force?

11

Do you think that Ragnar violated the Objectivist tenet of not initiating force?

Ragnar was a pirate so you might have a point. However Francisco destroyed only his -own- property which he had a right to do.

ruveyn1

12

“I quit and joined and went on strike,” said Hugh Alston, “because I couldn’t share my profession with men who claim that the qualification of an intellectual consists of denying the existence of the intellect. People would not employ a plumber who’d attempt to prove his professional excellence by asserting that there’s no such thing as plumbing -but, apparently, the same standard s of caution are not considered necessary in regards to philosophers. I learned from my own pupil,however,that it was I who made this possible. When thinkers accept those who deny the existence of thinking, as fellow thinkers of a different school of thought- it is they who achieve the destruction of the mind. They grant the enemy’s basic premise…”

What he goes on to say about Dr. Pritchett after that, why didn’t he fire off such intellectual ammo at him, et al., in this field then, instead of dropping all such weaponry and leaving the field altogether to them making it even more possible?

He couldn’t share his profession, so he left it to them completely?

Because of his zero tolerance, he surrendered it completely?

It seems you are making a stream of similar posts arguing various points about how the strike could have been avoided.

In your Strike/Purge thread I pointed out that in the timeline of AS The State Science Institute seems to have been the catalyst for the early strikers.

Akston saw it as a thing so egregious as to merit leaving the looter’s world of academia just as Galt saw it as the beginning of the end for freedom of production.

But you are very wrong about one thing in both your threads: you keep saying that the prime movers in AS didn’t use their “intellectual ammo” to try to convince people, to try to save people when the entire book turns out to be about Galt heading up the effort to do this very thing.

The issue you *seem* to be taking is that he did not, and Akston did not, offer to convince everybody equally.

Why should they feel any obligation to do so?

Do you treat everyone absolutely equally? Invite everyone no matter how objectionable to your birthday parties or holiday affairs?

I’d think not.

We pick and we choose people for whom we feel an affinity… intellectual, “spiritual”, emotional… through work, through art, through common virtues and goals.

Given what a hard task it was to convince the worthy, thr productive, the intelligent and the great to go along with it why would he waste it on the very people who were causing the destruction he was fleeing in the first place?

If you had to save people from a burning building would you choose to use your energy to save your friends and family or the strangers that lit the fire?

It seems in many ways that you are implying that in fleeing being used as a sacrificial animal to these masses you want them to offer themselves up as such one last time.

btw- I’m not sure if you are playing devil’s advocate or if you are seriously becoming turned off to Rand’s philosophy but I’ve been enjoying these posts. It is helpful to defend the reasoning behind these choices objectively.

13

Ragnar recovered stolen money. The stolen money, before it was repatriated, was being shipped off to prop-up Peope’s States across the globe… states who have already drained themselves of resources and capital and who were now looking at the US as the last apple on the tree. Yes, Ragnar took money that was to keep it all from falling apart, thus allowing it to fall apart. What you fail to recognize is that he didn’t steal the money in the first place, he was recovering it for its rightful owners; he didn’t promise the citizens of the People’s States stolen wealth from abroad, the leaders of those states did; he didn’t organize the collapse of those states, the states’ leaders did when they erected their society upon the moral foundation of a tapeworm.

Ragnar destroyed nothing except a criminal enterprise. I’m sure there are innocent benefactors of the mafia who suffer when a local don is gunned down or arrested. Giving to the poor is an effective and popular method of maintaining favorability within a community, particularly when you want the community to turn a blind eye to some of your less-moral endeavors. That an entire continent was dependant upon criminals to steal and extort money from productive men for their survival was a non-issue for our just pirate Ragnar. The criminals – the leaders, the politicians, the dictators – were dooming themselves and their people when they began to rely upon force for their livelihood.

2 Likes
14

Ragnar recovered stolen money.

A private individual has the right to recover property or money stolen from him, and then only by legal means.

If we grant there were no legal means available, Ragnar only had the right to take back what was his.

His agenda was to slay Robin Hood, not recover property or money stolen from him.

He was a vigilante.

ruveyn1

15

A private individual has the right to recover property or money stolen from him, and then only by legal means.

If we grant there were no legal means available, Ragnar only had the right to take back what was his.

His agenda was to slay Robin Hood, not recover property or money stolen from him.

He was a vigilante.

ruveyn1

Vigilantism can only exist where one is under the protection of a lawful system of justice.

There was no lawful justice to be had, making vigilantism a non-issue.

1 Like
16

Akston did not leave because of state science institute.

You also say:

"

But you are very wrong about one thing in both your threads: you keep saying that the prime movers in AS didn’t use their “intellectual ammo” to try to convince people, to try to save people when the entire book turns out to be about Galt heading up the effort to do this very thing."

My whole point is why he did not do any such speech beforehand, like at that meeting that night. Why didt Akston use any intellectual ammo in his profession, and Ragnar as well? Why didn’t they do that, first?

All Galt did was quit grad school when Stadler endorses SSI, I think he may have talked to him in his office or something, other than that, no word on anything if he said anything. It says he condemned in that timeline, I don’t see any reference in the book he condemned it then, explicitly. Maybe it says that in the timeline because he quit, I don’t know.

17

My whole point is why he did not do any such speech beforehand, like at that meeting that night.

When the cannibals seek to devour you the first rational thing is to get away from them.

Later you may decide to come back with reinforcements and see if any can be coverted to civilized ways.

But the first *rational* thing to do is to get away from the cannibals who outnumber you.

18

Ragnar was a pirate so you might have a point.

There had to have been people who became collatoral damage from his attacks, but that’s just the consequences of belonging to a corrupt system. It’s akin to people who choose to live among terrorists who have assumed the risk of sharing their fate.

However Francisco destroyed only his -own- property which he had a right to do.

ruveyn1

…and he did it with such flair.

19

When the cannibals seek to devour you the first rational thing is to get away from them.

Later you may decide to come back with reinforcements and see if any can be coverted to civilized ways.

But the first *rational* thing to do is to get away from the cannibals who outnumber you.

If they were literally going to, yes.

When he did come back to speak to the world, it was a “Ha, Ha, I told you I would stop the motor of the world.” It was never let me try to change their minds about the code that they practice, accept, teach, etc., it was never him trying to convert theirkind before the speech he made. I didn’t think he was trying to convert them THEN either. It was all way more about purging theirkind, not converting them.

20

If they were literally going to, yes.

When he did come back to speak to the world, it was a “Ha, Ha, I told you I would stop the motor of the world.” It was never let me try to change their minds about the code that they practice, accept, teach, etc., it was never him trying to convert theirkind before the speech he made. I didn’t think he was trying to convert them THEN either. It was all way more about purging theirkind, not converting them.

I ask in seriousness:

Have you ever been on an airplane?