Why do Hanks hold on to Lillians?
Why do Hanks hold onto Lillians?
I have searched my entire life for my Hank, and have yet to find him. Well, at least not available. I do see Hanks around and they seem to always have a Lillian hanging on. Why? I see this as a contradiction. How can someone live a happy, fulfilling life with a contradiction like this? I will not compromise or sacrifice myself, and don't don't want anyone to compromise or sacrifice for me.
Lillian has no respect for Hank, his work or his business as demonstrated when he gives her a bracelet made from the 1st heat of his new metal, mockingly saying: “You mean,”...”it's fully as valuable as a piece of railroad rails?” She jingled the bracelet, making it sparkle under the light. “Henry it's perfectly wonderful! What originality! I shall be the sensation of New York, wearing jewelry made of the same stuff as bridge girders, truck motors, kitchen stoves, typewriters, and – what was it you were saying about it the other day, darling? - soup kettles?”
Lillian is not particularly interested in Hanks money, of course until she has none, but she is very interested in her position and image. Hank has no other value to her. She uses him as a pawn to gain position and pull as demonstrated when attending James Taggart's wedding.
Then there are family members.
Hank's mother: “The intention's plain selfishness, if you ask me,” said Reardens mother. “another man would bring a diamond bracelet, if he want to give his wife a present, because it's her pleasure he'd think of not his own. But Henry thinks that just because he's made a new kind of tin, why, it's got to be more precious than diamonds to everybody, just because it's he that's made it. That's the way he's been since he was five years old – the most conceited brat you ever saw – and I knew he'd grow up to be the most selfish creature on God's earth.”
Philip: “By the way, Henry,” Philip added, “do you mind if I ask you to have Miss Ives give me the money in cash?” …...”You see, Friends of Global Progress are a very progressive group and they have always maintained that you represent the blackest element of social retrogression in the country, so it would embarrass us, you know, to have your name on our list of contributors, because somebody might accuse us of being in the pay of Hank Rearden.”
Here is AR on Contradiction (From The Virtue of Selfishness): The Law of Identity (A is A) is a rational man’s paramount consideration in the process of determining his interests. He knows that the contradictory is the impossible, that a contradiction cannot be achieved in reality and that the attempt to achieve it can lead only to disaster and destruction. Therefore, he does not permit himself to hold contradictory values, to pursue contradictory goals, or to imagine that the pursuit of a contradiction can ever be to his interest.
Does your significant other respect and value you and your philosophy of life? If not, why are you still there?
I have searched my entire life for my Hank, and have yet to find him. Well, at least not available. I do see Hanks around and they seem to always have a Lillian hanging on. Why? I see this as a contradiction. How can someone live a happy, fulfilling life with a contradiction like this? I will not compromise or sacrifice myself, and don't don't want anyone to compromise or sacrifice for me.
Lillian has no respect for Hank, his work or his business as demonstrated when he gives her a bracelet made from the 1st heat of his new metal, mockingly saying: “You mean,”...”it's fully as valuable as a piece of railroad rails?” She jingled the bracelet, making it sparkle under the light. “Henry it's perfectly wonderful! What originality! I shall be the sensation of New York, wearing jewelry made of the same stuff as bridge girders, truck motors, kitchen stoves, typewriters, and – what was it you were saying about it the other day, darling? - soup kettles?”
Lillian is not particularly interested in Hanks money, of course until she has none, but she is very interested in her position and image. Hank has no other value to her. She uses him as a pawn to gain position and pull as demonstrated when attending James Taggart's wedding.
Then there are family members.
Hank's mother: “The intention's plain selfishness, if you ask me,” said Reardens mother. “another man would bring a diamond bracelet, if he want to give his wife a present, because it's her pleasure he'd think of not his own. But Henry thinks that just because he's made a new kind of tin, why, it's got to be more precious than diamonds to everybody, just because it's he that's made it. That's the way he's been since he was five years old – the most conceited brat you ever saw – and I knew he'd grow up to be the most selfish creature on God's earth.”
Philip: “By the way, Henry,” Philip added, “do you mind if I ask you to have Miss Ives give me the money in cash?” …...”You see, Friends of Global Progress are a very progressive group and they have always maintained that you represent the blackest element of social retrogression in the country, so it would embarrass us, you know, to have your name on our list of contributors, because somebody might accuse us of being in the pay of Hank Rearden.”
Here is AR on Contradiction (From The Virtue of Selfishness): The Law of Identity (A is A) is a rational man’s paramount consideration in the process of determining his interests. He knows that the contradictory is the impossible, that a contradiction cannot be achieved in reality and that the attempt to achieve it can lead only to disaster and destruction. Therefore, he does not permit himself to hold contradictory values, to pursue contradictory goals, or to imagine that the pursuit of a contradiction can ever be to his interest.
Does your significant other respect and value you and your philosophy of life? If not, why are you still there?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
Congratulations to identifying the major problem in relationships between men and women and more importantly between husbands and wives.
we still live in a society that has men providing the majority of income in a relationship and the problem you describe exists primarily among the doers of this world.
Some women will have a disagreement with my next statement, but so be it. The truth is the truth. Some women are influenced in their choice of a mate by his potential economic future. I don't claim that this is in any way wrong on their part, I only say it as a basis for my opinion. That choice is not always clear to the woman as it requires complete dedication of the man to his work. As a result the man does not always have the ability to p-lace his wife in the forefront of his concerns. This becomes an impossible conundrum for him to resolve. I don't mean to to say that therefore all women become as Lillian or as Hank Rearden's mother, but many will fall in that category as rockymountainpirate states in her commentary. By the way, I was surprised to find out that rockymountainpirate is a woman since the her screen name would not have led to assume that case.
You are indeed correct in questioning the premise that you did. I in turn sometimes find myself questioning where all the reasonable intelligent and logical women are?
The scene of Hank rearden giving his wife the bracelet was one of the most poignant to me as it represented the culmination of all his hard work and ingenuity. I felt that scene to be very personal.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
You mean like Dagny.
Similarly, D'Anconia and the others whom Galt persuades to quit also develop. But it would be redundant to put them on stage when we do get to watch the whole change unfold in the cases of Hank and Dagny.
In a world where Galt failed (or just took longer), and Rearden was in prison or hiding in the woods of Montana, Lillian would have been more than willing to 'marry up' to the rising star of the widowed James Taggert, I think.
Jan
Once married, it is 'disloyal' to leave your dependent partner - especially if you cannot afford to endow her with an independent livelihood. And it is SCARY to do so and be 'on your own' emotionally; and feeling guilty too to boot. So, because it is 'scary' you rationalize and say that you cannot just dump the other person...and you continue with your life together with her.
These are my observations from people around me - a few of them tend toward Randism but none of them are emotionally capable of saying, "I swear by my life..."
Jan
What Hank did not understand until Dagny is that love, admiration and sex are inextricably interwoven. He had split off sex as a somewhat shameful need which reluctantly drove him to his frigid wife's bedroom. Lillian serviced him as the price of her social position. She was a whore. It was James Taggart who most shared her sense of life.
Having seen the light with Dagny, Hank would never have gone back to Lillian; *that* would have been infidelity. Note that both Francisco and Hank, notwithstanding their love for Dagny, stepped aside respectfully when John entered the picture, as he was the most worthy. Whether these two former lovers of hers would ever find another qualified woman is unlikely. Who could equal Dagny if she was indeed the highest value?
(It occurs to me that Ayn Rand got some vicarious pleasure out of seeing her heroine loved by the three greatest men in the world.)
Hank might have taken some comfort from his adoring secretary, but she could never fill Dagny's place in his heart and mind. The same holds for the unfortunate and worshipful Eddie, who knew his place as a devoted assistant and would have given his life for Dagny but never aspired to be the man she would choose as life mate.
On a personal note, my life mate and I have been joyfully together for 44 years and treasure each day. For all you wanna-be Hanks and Johns and Dagnys, I recommend a sense of humor in addition to the heavy philosophical baggage. "We never had to take any of it seriously, did we?"
And sharing the intimacy of your body with a 3rd party in violation of your oath is moral, but cheating at business is not?
You can't be honest in business and dishonest in your personal relationships. Divorce Lillian, THEN bang Dagny.
In my definition, a hero is someone who strives beyond what he believes he's capable of. The way I usually put it is, "A hero is inadequate; someone so scared he's pissing his pants, but he stands and fights anyway".
If you're not afraid, if you're not striving beyond what you think you can achieve... you're not a hero. In my opinion.
Superman and all associated "heroes" are what the dog leaves behind on the lawn, (also imo).
"Serving a just cause" is a subjective measure. And a bit anti-objectivist, since objectivists are supposedly opposed to "serving".
"Achieving a just goal" might work, however. Then a villain would be one who strives to achieve an unjust goal.
Example; hero wants money. He gets 3 jobs and lives on just what he needs to survive. This is achieving a goal justly. (e.g. trading value for value)
Villain wants money, he robs a bank. This is achieving a goal unjustly. (e.g. not trading value for value)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcAMJENa2...
Okay, so, let's sign a contract. I'll hire you to write a game manual in exchange for a certain remuneration.
However, I get "lost" in the development, and keep changing the design. So you can't write a coherent manual.
So you take the money you've been paid thus far, and invest it in another game company.
Perfectly moral, because I failed to make your task match your ideal of that task.
Bottom line; unless they had some kind of weirdo modernist marriage ceremony, Rearden took an oath... and then when things got rough, the "for worse" part... he started banging someone else.
You're saying it's moral to break your word simply because someone else didn't meet your expectations, perhaps even broke theirs.
A man of character doesn't care what the other person does; if he gives his word, he keeps it. And not just when it's easy.
Load more comments...