Atlas Shrugged, Part 1 Chapter 8: The John Galt Line.
Summary: Willers tells John Galt about Dwight Sanders. Dagny hears on the radio that Sanders quit. Paul Larkin got Rearden’s ore business, and Ken Danagger (age 50s) got his coal mines. Mouch resigned and became Assistant Coordinator of the Bureau of Economic Planning and National Resources. Despite various challenges to the John Galt Line, the work continued, and Dagny chose Pat Logan to be engineer on its first train. They held a press conference, then had the first run on July 22. The run is successful, and Wyatt joins them to celebrate. Dagny and Hank consummate their romance.
Start by reading the first-tier comments, which are all quotes of Ayn Rand (some of my favorites, some just important for other reasons). Comment on your favorite ones, or others' comments. Don't see your favorite quote? Post it in a new comment. Please reserve new comments for Ayn Rand, and your non-Rand quotes for "replies" to the quotes or discussion. (Otherwise Rand's quotes will get crowded out and pushed down into oblivion. You can help avoid this by "voting up" the Rand quotes, or at least the ones you especially like, and voting down first-tier comments that are not quotes of the featured book.)
Atlas Shrugged was written by Ayn Rand in 1957.
My idea for this post is discussed here:
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
Start by reading the first-tier comments, which are all quotes of Ayn Rand (some of my favorites, some just important for other reasons). Comment on your favorite ones, or others' comments. Don't see your favorite quote? Post it in a new comment. Please reserve new comments for Ayn Rand, and your non-Rand quotes for "replies" to the quotes or discussion. (Otherwise Rand's quotes will get crowded out and pushed down into oblivion. You can help avoid this by "voting up" the Rand quotes, or at least the ones you especially like, and voting down first-tier comments that are not quotes of the featured book.)
Atlas Shrugged was written by Ayn Rand in 1957.
My idea for this post is discussed here:
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
Anyone know if there is a model-train version of the "John Galt" train from the movie?
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
Dagny: “I have told you: the profit which I expect to make… Miss Taggart says – quote – I expect to make a pile of money on the John Galt Line. I will have earned it. Close quote. Thank you so much.”
Remember the common phrase from many years ago: "That's a fact, Jack!"? It seems most of the pronouncements preceding that remark were far less than factual.
Yes. The same is true for "period", "full stop", and "plain and simple". Whenever I hear these, it's a cue to question the preceding statement.
I heard something like this in college. The line of thinking goes something like this: "Our culture and values influence the very questions we ask, which lines of reasoning we pursue, and even our observations. Craniometry is an example of how these cultural values led to wrong conclusions. Accepting science as value-neutral leads to problems."
I want to go back in time 20 years and grill those professors. I want to ask how do we know we are right now but wrong then? Is it observation? Or is it we decided we value racial equality (I certainly do), and from there we similarly sought evidence consistent with our values? I completely agree science can be wrong. By its nature it encourages people to test hypoetheses and theories. It "wants" surprises. It's practiced by humans with human foibles, so maybe it's never value neutral. So you're right. There are no facts for all time beyond question. Does that mean we give up, and just make stuff up?
I found this quote significant and posted it for the very reason you commented on it: because we can all relate to it since we have heard it taught in school or such. It is this kind of relativism that Rand was showing does not conform to reality.
Regarding the reliability of science, I would say that science itself is reliable in theory. The problem is the practice of man. We are fallible. We are inconsistent. We have blind spots. So sometimes people are biased in terms of what evidence they seek or accept. Sometimes they misjudge the limits of science (e.g., studying observable nature to draw conclusions about supernatural mysteries). Sometimes we just make human errors. In all of these cases, it is not science that is to blame, but its misuse.
This sentence summarizes what I was trying to say.
I was saying I would say all that to my college professor if I could go back in time 20 years.
What I drew from this was we have to tolerate some inefficiencies in any system. If we need a gov't to run courts and such, there will be some waste where someone's getting a free ride. Sensible people will not go on strike or overthrow the gov't on account of light and transient causes. Rand is inviting us to ask how much is too much. How much treading will it take before even the worms turn and resist?
People sometimes ask what one thing would I change about our government. I really don't know where else to start. If they get private property wrong, they get everything else wrong. If man owns himself, he owns his life, his time, his labor, the fruit of his labor, and no man, not even a group of men called the "Government," has the right to violate our right to life (i.e., self-ownership). In fact, the Government is tasked to protect that right against those who would take it away. It is sad that the Government has become what it should be fighting. All social interaction, including taxes, should be voluntary. Our Government, no less than criminals, violate our right to property and self-ownership.