Yes, only one. I flew from Pittsburgh to Hollywood to see the production QCFA had of Maurice Maeterlincks Monna Vanna. I don’t see where you are going with this…
About Ragnar:
He was metaphorically slaying Robin Hood. His exact agenda was to repatriate the money with its rightful owners. Observe the detailed records he obtained from the IRS, and the accounts he had set up in the rightful owners’ names with the rightful owners’ money in them, waiting for the rightful owners to collect it.
About converting the shrugged world:
It was never about “them” to begin with. The strike was not to teach them or convert them or to purge them, it was to get out of their path of evil and destruction and, in fact, to stop feeding and sanctioning the evil by remaining active in an evil system.
That was the main purpose: for the strikers to live as free men, removed from a society of evil. Did they forsee the collapse of such a society (which had engulfed the globe) when they withdrew their minds and sanction from it? They did. Did they wish to become educators and instill the same virtue of foresight upon the rest of the world? They did not. They wished to live, apart and seperate from the rest of world who (implicitly or explicity) didn’t. That a group of men is walking off a cliff doesn’t obligate another group of men to stop them, particularly when the second group of men was formerly a part of the first and has been trying to steer the first away all along (if only by showing the rest how to avoid the cliff – how to live – by example, if not by explicit education) and all they get for it is damned and used on the way to it, only to be taken over the edge of it with the rest, to boot.
Did they wish to become educators and instill the same virtue of foresight upon the rest of the world? They did not.
Precisely. And that is why I am raising the issue on why they choose that, then.
They not only foresaw a collapse, but were waiting for it, eagerly anticipating it, and speeding it up. Galt was trying to get theirkind the hell out of the way for hiskind. Ruin the country/world, not try to change it, then to return to it afterwards.
Yes, only one. I flew from Pittsburgh to Hollywood to see the production QCFA had of Maurice Maeterlincks Monna Vanna. I don’t see where you are going with this…
You put your own oxygen mask on first.
Precisely. And that is why I am raising the issue on why they choose that, then.
They not only foresaw a collapse, but were waiting for it, eagerly anticipating it, and speeding it up. Galt was trying to get theirkind the hell out of the way for hiskind. Ruin the country/world, not try to change it, then to return to it afterwards.
The government had become evil beyond repair. All the Good Guys could do is withdraw and hide. The withdrawal sped up the downfall after which the Good Guys could return. It said somewhere in Atlas Shrugged that Galt did not know how long it would take for the downfall. It might have taken more than a generation in which case the children of the Good Guys could pick up the pieces.
ruveyn1
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.
He did appeal to those with whom he could reason with. He actively sought them out. He made them aware of the code that they were practicing and accepted. When they changed their minds and chose a different code to practice and accept, they quit their business of dropping the fruits of their labor into the open mouths who expected the mana to continue to fall in from the heavens.
He appealed to hiskind. He spoke of neutrals, but did not try to appeal to them, then. He also did not try to appeal to theirkind, or mankind in general, only hiskind. So he already knows there are neutrals, ones that have not taken any explicit stance, or showing that they were not open to reason.
He was not out to change minds, but after hiskind and to approach only them to join him, in order to collapse the whole structure upon theirkinds heads.
He appealed to hiskind. He spoke of neutrals, but did not try to appeal to them, then. He also did not try to appeal to theirkind, or mankind in general, only hiskind. So he already knows there are neutrals, ones that have not taken any explicit stance, or showing that they were not open to reason.
He was not out to change minds, but after hiskind and to approach only them to join him, in order to collapse the whole structure upon theirkinds heads.
Do you think he ought have the moral obligation and duty to do so?
A duty? Absolutely not. I’m not one for a duty-oriented ethics.
He appealed to hiskind. He spoke of neutrals, but did not try to appeal to them, then. He also did not try to appeal to theirkind, or mankind in general, only hiskind. So he already knows there are neutrals, ones that have not taken any explicit stance, or showing that they were not open to reason.
He was not out to change minds, but after hiskind and to approach only them to join him, in order to collapse the whole structure upon theirkinds heads.
I believe that it was because he understood that “neutrals” are totally worthless.
If a person happens to be swayed by the strongest external force of the moment, they can also be swayed the other way when in the presence of another external force. You never want to put yourself in the position of entrusting your life to any person who lacks inner conviction, because you cannot ever count on their loyalty.
1 Like
I think neutrals, the word Galt uses, though he does not say who they exactly are, are children, babies, ones that are not on a side in the battle, basically.
Precisely. And that is why I am raising the issue on why they choose that, then.
They not only foresaw a collapse, but were waiting for it, eagerly anticipating it, and speeding it up. Galt was trying to get theirkind the hell out of the way for hiskind. Ruin the country/world, not try to change it, then to return to it afterwards.
Why would they choose the alternative: to spend their lives living in a world which hates them as much as it needs them, and which takes from them as much as it damns them, and then turn all their energies to the task of lecturing to that world (while it sucks their life out of them) “Let me be free; here’s why”? Why choose to live as livestock professors who attempt to educate their farmers, when they can choose to live as free men?
Why would they choose the alternative: to spend their lives living in a world which hates them as much as it needs them, and which takes from them as much as it damns them, and then turn all their energies to the task of lecturing to that world (while it sucks their life out of them) “Let me be free; here’s why”? Why choose to live as livestock professors who attempt to educate their farmers, when they can choose to live as free men?
Lecturing rarely changes anyone’s mind. Suffering, pain, privation, hazard and death are more likely to change someone’s mind.
There is an old saying: As ye sow, so shall reap. The Looters and Moochers sowed the wind; Galt and company enabled them to reap the whirlwind. One of the most satisfying victories is to see one’s enemies hoisted on their own petards.
Meaning
Injured by the device that you intended to use to injure others.
ruveyn1
Lecturing rarely changes anyone’s mind. Suffering, pain, privation, hazard and death are more likely to change someone’s mind.
Yes. There is no finer teacher than the reality of the consequences we set into motion by our own actions.
There is an old saying: As ye sow, so shall reap. The Looters and Moochers sowed the wind; Galt and company enabled them to reap the whirlwind. One of the most satisfying victories is to see one’s enemies hoisted on their own petards.
Meaning
Injured by the device that you intended to use to injure others.
ruveyn1
One of the qualities I love most about Atlas Shrugged is Ayn Rand’s unflinching sense of moral justice.
Lecturing rarely changes anyone’s mind. Suffering, pain, privation, hazard and death are more likely to change someone’s mind
One thing is clear, they were out to teach them a real lesson alright. Choose to perish or learn. I guess they thought that their minds would be more open to them then, rather than before striking, or as I see it as, let’s not even try to appealing to minds, let’s just collapse it all upon their heads instead.
This quote is interesting when Akston speaks to Dagny, and helps support what I said:
“I am writing a book on this subject, defining a moral philosophy that I learned from my own pupil… Yes, it could save the world… No, it will not be published outside.”
So Galts moral philosophy could have saved the world… but Galt used his philosophy not to appeal to minds with initially, but bring about collapse upon their heads, purging them that way, so hiskind can return. And take over. Judge Narragansett was already making changes to a copy of the US Constituition in preparation for it, and had also been working on a treatise on the philosophy of law.
This quote is interesting when Akston speaks to Dagny, and helps support what I said:
“I am writing a book on this subject, defining a moral philosophy that I learned from my own pupil… Yes, it could save the world… No, it will not be published outside.”
I respond: That was Akston’s opinion of his work. He could not have known for sure that it would have saved the world. Could = It is possible. Would = I is for sure.
ruveyn.
This quote is interesting when Akston speaks to Dagny, and helps support what I said:
“I am writing a book on this subject, defining a moral philosophy that I learned from my own pupil… Yes, it could save the world… No, it will not be published outside.”
So Galts moral philosophy could have saved the world… but Galt used his philosophy not to appeal to minds with initially, but bring about collapse upon their heads, purging them that way, so hiskind can return. And take over. Judge Narragansett was already making changes to a copy of the US Constituition in preparation for it, and had also been working on a treatise on the philosophy of law.
Yes, that’s the point. The novel appeals to the real world (the reader) by showing what happens to the world when the mind goes on strike. It would have been pointless for Galt, Akston and company to make any such appeals to the make believe world outside the gulch. Why even write such a book? That would be boring.
She probably would have been bored doing it. There was a quote I had that went into that (which when I find it, I will share it here). Which to me now begs a question…
But if it could have saved the world, did she have Galt choose the method that he did, purely for the sake of the story itself to save herself from boredom when writing?
I would have written it differently.
She probably would have been bored doing it. There was a quote I had that went into that (which when I find it, I will share it here). Which to me now begs a question…
But if it could have saved the world, did she have Galt choose the method that he did, purely for the sake of the story itself to save herself from boredom when writing?
I would have written it differently.
Consider the reason Ayn Rand might have chosen to dramatize a strike of the mind instead of writing a story about intellectuals making appeals to other men to change their thinking and behavior. Which choice makes the story more interesting, more exciting and more dramatic? Which choice illustrates the role of the mind in human existence better? Intellectual appeals to the looter class or a comprehensive strike of the mind against the looter class?