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?
"Do you promise to cleave unto him in sickness and in health <--- for richer for poorer <-- for better for worse.... all of them refer to the status of the relationship, NOT "outside conditions".
Are you suggesting that "for richer, for poorer" is purely a matter of chance, from outside forces over which each member of the couple has no control?
:snort:
I love it when Objectivists try to justify evading moral responsibility.
Most everyone here loves the protagonists of AS. Most of them do, because, in my opinion, it justifies their own immoral behavior.
God forbid that the AS protagonists actually be whole 3D people who actually do bad things, as well as good, who actually act stupidly, or emotionally, as well as wisely or rationally. No, every "bad" thing they do was in response to some other "bad" thing someone else did, and so, being victims, as is so popular in modern society, they are absolved of responsibility for their behavior.
D'Anconia's vindictive, destructive behavior is okay, because the ends justify the means. Galt's targeting of resources Dagny needs in his acquisition of "Strikers" is okay, because the ends justifies the means (and the ends really weren't just forcing the woman he was stalking into turning to him... /sarc).
The property Ragnar took upon himself to destroy, including the ships and cargo that, while they may have not been the just property of those who possessed it, certainly were not *his* to seize or destroy... that all was okay, because the ends justify the means.
Obama screws the country over... that's okay, so long as his apologists can find examples where other occupants of the WH also screwed the country over. Same logic.
EXAMPLES of how she abandoned her vows?
I see, we just kind of mumble over the "...for worse" part of the marriage oath, huh?
If "she" was training navy pilots, I fully expect our days of air supremacy to end as soon as our enemies acquire equivalent hardware.
DEA agent... you mean in that war on drugs so many here delight in declaring a failure?
Lesson 101: other people are only worth having around for the sex.
Lesson 102; whenever you grow bored, or you find someone who gets you hotter, it's perfectly okay to dump the person you're with to pursue someone else who makes you hot, with no regard to their feelings.
Yeah, she'd be a great educator. Dagny was an impressive businessman, but a lousy human being. Like most of AS's protagonists.
And after her husband cuckolded her.
If marriage is only about sex, then wives are nothing but prostitutes. You like that philosophy being part of Objectivism, go for it.
Any man who lets a woman control him because of his Johnson deserves everything that happens to him. Especially if that man is supposedly otherwise a master of industry. And I never got that Lillian was that much of a siren.
And, with Rearden's wonderful interpersonal skills... all of his companies probably would have come to naught without her networking skills... because the Wesley Mouches of the world didn't just pop up fully fledged one day. For centuries a big part of success has been not just what you know, but who you know. And how you know them.
You don't know what machinations she did at her various events to make and keep the connections that allowed him to build his empire. You just know what happened when the powers that be put him on their shit list, and so the social environment necessary for his success dried up.
I'm not saying it's right or good... just that that is the way it is (and why Objectivism is a utopian ideal).
Exactly *how* did she violate the oath before he did? Who was *she* banging before he started banging Dagney?
As I recall the marriage oath, "For richer, for poorer, for better, for WORSE, in sickness and in health... til death do us part."
No where in there does it say, "but hey, if she's not the woman you thought she was, if she's changed, if she undermines your lousy business ambitions, if she uses you financially, if she hangs out with people you don't like... oh, well hell, then you're not bound by the oath YOU voluntarily took to cling only unto her.
Now it's clear why America in the 21st century is so screwed up. The campaign to undermine American morality was wholly successful.
What you're suggesting is that it is okay to make yourself the law; that, without a court hearing or other legal procedure, you can take upon yourself to decide that the other party was in breach of the contract, and therefore you do not have to uphold your end of it.
I repeat, the proper way to deal with it would have been to divorce Lillian (and deal with the subsequent scandal and inevitable persecution by her allies) and *then* bang Dagny.
It could be that some of us have gotten screwed in the past into supporting a man who doesn't pull his own weight, and we want to be more careful next time.
Aside: We're already seeing the incentive effect of this change in the law. Marriage is becoming as rare as "permanent" jobs in places like France that make it difficult and costly to fire people, even with cause.
I'm not quite sure why your comment was hidden as the explanation by the sites moderator makes little if any sense.
As to your comment, I do believe that your reasoning is certainly reasonable even though it seems to ignore some facts in evidence as to the Rearden's marital relationship.
You state that no matter what Lillian has ignored in their marital obligations, Hank Rearden should honor his oath of marriage.
A legitimate argument can be made as has been by some posting on this site, that Lillian’s actions of being non-supportive of her husband's needs and implied loyalty in her oath of marriage made their marriage contract null and void. In this particular presentation of their marriage, I would agree with them that his actions do not reach the level of adultery or any other version of betrayal of his obligations. The story makes clear that she despises her husband and that one of the requirements of any marriage, love, has long ago ceased to exist. Considering that religion plays little if any part in the authors concept of marriage, no adherence to that "oath" can be expected.
Of course, my own belief, that in fact the entire story of "Atlas Shrugged" in truth mirrors the concept of Christianity and how to treat people creates my own conflict as to this issue.
In my many previous posts on this site, when I have mentioned the concept of Christianity, I ended up engaged in many debates with those that do not believe in the concept.
I of course am familiar with Ayn Rand's claim to being an atheist while my personal understanding of her novel clearly identifies with many aspects of Christianity.
One of the many misunderstandings by atheist is that Christians act on behalf of others by their own choice and understanding of their faith, so it in no way conflicts with John Galt's oath.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
I guess I could give them Anthem, but I wouldn't get the same read.
Load more comments...