- Navigation
- Hot
- New
- Recent Comments
- Activity Feed
- Marketplace
- Members Directory
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
Besides, "storming" and "telling off" are not the behavior of rational people. When you see someone contemptible you recognize it for what it is and go back to your own values, not dwelling on it with the self-punishment of wallowing in it. If it's an injustice perpetrated by force or fraud, then you deal with that rationally. But what good is throwing a fit over it? Why waste energy and time on the contemptible through emotional self-explosions? There is so much more to life.
I understand your viewpoint on this and intend to reread Atlas with this in mind, however I still believe the same point could have been portrayed by his character simply telling off Lillian and storming off to fall into the arms of Dagny, in that order. To me, that would have proven his integrity even more. Like I have said before, I lose respect for those who cheat in a relationship that is perceived to be committed by the other party, no matter the circumstances.
Part of Rearden's exceptionalism was his devotion in his career in metallurgy and manufacturing, but that single minded focus left him vulnerable to philosophical ideas he didn't know to watch out for. Like so many other good people in science, engineering, medicine and other fields of intelligence not focusing on fundamental philosophical ideas that are crucial to their lives, he didn't know to 'check his philosophical premises'; he let the ends of his productive achievement be turned over to his enemies. It wasn't just his relation to Lillian -- you saw it throughout the novel in his sacrificial alms through his brother and how he was one of the last to join the strike.
Rearden wasn't alone; we see it everywhere. Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged to correct it by showing the necessity for a revolutionary new ethics and its content. Her primary purpose in writing the novel was to show in fictional form her vision of the "ideal man", with the plot-theme of the role of the mind in human life. It took someone with exceptional ability, like John Galt in the novel (and Ayn Rand in reality), to sort out the bad philosophy and replace it with proper ideas, then fight for them throughout the conflicts portrayed in the plot. That took a lot more than just not being a slow learner.
In a lecture presenting her "The Objectivist Ethics" at MIT in 1962 Ayn Rand included a special introduction for "the students who are to be America's scientists", reprinted as "To Young Scientists" in her anthology The Voice of Reason. In that introduction she focused on the "alleged dichotomy between science and ethics" in which the results of rational thought are turned over in principle to the irrational in the name of ethics. In Atlas Shrugged Hank Rearden illustrated the unwitting acceptance of that scam. He learned and corrected it. Robert Stadler did not, and choosing to not face it destroyed himself -- the fast learner who chose not to think.
"'But what have you done to your own reputation?'
"Francisco shrugged. 'Those whom I respect, will know the truth about me, sooner or later. The others'—his face hardened—'the others consider that which I really am as evil. Let them have what they prefer—what I appear to be on the front pages.'
"'But what for? Why did you do it? Just to teach them a lesson?'
"'Hell, no! I wanted to be known as a playboy.'
"'Why?'
"'A playboy is a man who just can't help letting money run through his fingers.'
"'Why did you want to assume such an ugly sort of role?'
"'Camouflage.'
"'For what?"
"For a purpose of my own.'
"'What purpose?'
"Francisco shook his head. 'Don't ask me to tell you that. I've told you more than I should. You'll come to know the rest of it soon, anyway.'"
-- Atlas Shrugged Part Two / Chapter IV "The Sanction Of The Victim"
"He took her hands and pressed them to his lips and held them, not moving, not as a kiss, but as a long moment of rest, as if the effort of speech were a distraction from the fact of her presence, and as if he were torn by too many things to say, by the pressure of all the words stored in the silence of years.
"'The women I chased—you didn't believe that, did you? I've never touched one of them—but I think you knew it, I think you've known it all along. The playboy—it was a part that I had to play in order not to let the looters suspect me while I was destroying d'Anconia Copper in plain sight of the whole world. That's the joker in their system, they're out to fight any man of honor and ambition, but let them see a worthless rotter and they think he's a friend, they think he's safe—safe!—that's their view of life, but are they learning!—are they learning whether evil is safe and incompetence practical!… Dagny, it was the night when I knew, for the first time, that I loved you—it was then that I knew I had to go. It was when you entered my hotel room, that night, when I saw what you looked like, what you were, what you meant to me—and what awaited you in the future. Had you been less, you might have stopped me for a while. But it was you, you who were the final argument that made me leave you. I asked for your help, that night—against John Galt. But I knew that you were his best weapon against me, though neither you nor he could know it. You were everything that he was seeking, everything he told us to live for or die, if necessary.… I was ready for him, when he called me suddenly to come to New York, that spring...'"
-- Atlas Shrugged Part Three / Chapter II "The Utopia Of Greed"
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
Adhering to the irrational "contract" with Lillian was in fact a moral issue, but a consequence of adhering to the false duty-morality underlying it, which was part of the story. Lillian Rearden's behavior for years before that was inexcusable and was not the basis of the original marriage. Of course he should have told Lillian, far before Dagny, and dumped her. The plot was about why he didn't because of the destructive nature of his false traditional premises, not "justifying secret affairs". That he didn't was a deliberate point of tension in the plot until it was resolved with an understanding of the proper morality near the end -- just like the rest of the plot about the 'strike' and the intellectual development of the heroes who had rejected it. The description of the divorce at the end of the Lillian saga was included for a dramatic, climactic illustration of Rearden's new understanding and his sudden change in putting it into unequivocal action.
If you don't understand what you call a "distraction" of the relation between Rearden and Dagny and how the conflict evolved and was ultimately resolved in the plot, you are missing a big piece of the plot and theme of the whole novel -- and Ayn Rand's philosophy that made it all possible. It was not about sanctioning religious conservativism or a-philosophical libertarian "contracts".
No one is making "excuses" for the Ayn Rand/Branden affair. She did not "cheat" in her personal life as was falsely accused.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolidg...
I certainly don't have any sympathy for Lillian. I was only disappointed with Hank's decision to break his contract without giving notice of his intent to do so. Secretly breaking a contract behind someone's back is not rational in my mind.
if that's what you mean, he was only pretending to
be, because of his mission--a sort of camouflage.
have I inadvertently misspelled "Coolige"?)
were to be married; I believe that self-respecting people stick to one at a time. But I would make
that clear before getting married. Also, I would not act as Lillian did, constantly putting her husband's career down, and refusing to give him
any satisfaction even in the sex act itself. (I
understand that this was deliberate on her part).
In fact, she was glad when she found he was
having an adulterous affair, not objecting until she found it was with Dagny, somebody who was not a slut. She enjoyed the idea that he had done something that caused him to feel guilty. I really have not much sympathy for her at all.
pressed, and held in chains, as Ayn Rand said.
I am not overly familiar with the details of Rand's own affair, however the timing of her husband's knowledge of the affair would be critical in my not being distracted by her actions.
Let me be clear, I adore Ayn Rand, what she accomplished, and what she stood for. Just because there is one action of her personal life that I may not agree with, does not make her less of an influence on my life and countless others' lives. I also very much love Atlas Shrugged, even with the "distraction" (in my opinion) of adultery between the two main characters.
Rand was a human being, much more rational than a typical human, but still fallible. There does not need to be an excuse made for any irrational behavior she may or may not have exhibited at times.
When he did finally bolt after Lillian made the necessity so snarlingly obvious, he did what it took to get the divorce despite the improper legal obstructionism:
"He had handed to his attorney a signed blank check and said, 'Get me a divorce. On any grounds and at any cost. I don't care what means you use, how many of their judges you purchase or whether you find it necessary to stage a frame-up of my wife. Do whatever you wish. But there is to be no alimony and no property settlement.' The attorney had looked at him with the hint of a wise, sad smile, as if this were an event he had expected to happen long ago. He had answered, 'Okay, Hank. It can be done. But it will take some time.' 'Make it as fast as you can.'"
The plot and characterization showed Rearden as conflicted with unearned guilt as he pursued what was in fact right, not as a cheater by nature, denying reality. They were also the last two major characters to understand the logic of the strike. That development of the characters in the plot, discovering proper principles and overthrowing false premises leading to unearned guilt, is what was significantly "featured", not "cheating". Don't switch the featuring of Rearden and Dagny's relationship in the plot to the ugly accusation of "featuring cheating".
Ayn Rand did not cheat in her personal life. Her affair with Branden was done openly with their spouses' full knowledge. It was badly rationalized, not "brazen" (and Ayn Rand later denounced the practice as unworkabley improper), but it was not intentionally dishonest and not cheating. Branden's dishonesty came later after the affair was long over, and his betrayals led to his being expelled and permanently repudiated. See James Valliant's The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics.
These kind of fictional devices and personal choices are frequently exploited by cynically snarling haters of Ayn Rand to smear her, including inflammatory one-liners liners like the context-dropping "cheater" accusation (and similar misrepresentations of "rape" in The Fountainhead). Don't fall for it.
As far as Dagny, it isn't as significant to me, because she did not enter any contract of marriage. It wasn't her contract to break. I have never personally been a fan of someone who interferes with another's marriage, but it is ultimately the married parties who are responsible. So, I guess it only made me feel sorry for Dagny that she had to go and fall for someone already "committed." I feel like she loved Francisco more than Hank, but he was a prick, so she ended up with the married guy instead... ha!
Load more comments...