Thoughts on my 2nd time through AS
I'm listening to an audio version of Atlas Shrugged. Read it about a decade ago. This 2nd time through, of course, is thought-provoking. Random thoughts... I was surprised and disappointed with the level of romantic jealousy Rearden had toward Francisco. I'm not sure the purpose of that in the story...other than to set up a great character development in him(?). Galt's speech is too long. But, would have made an excellent short book on philosophy! What is the purpose of Project X? In my mind it's to demonstrate the true violence of government and collectivism. But, I welcome comments on this. And finally...I can't help but note the comparison of the torture of John Galt with Room 101 in 1984. A colleague of mine and I regularly say, "The torture is the purpose"...a very chilling line we both noticed in 1984.
I think that Project X represents how a government has to increase its use of force proportional to the mandate that its citizens live contrary to their own self interest.
I would not shorten Galt's speech by one word, not Francisco's money speech. In my view Rand devised the whole book as a lure to readers to those two speeches.
I doubt that Rand had any hope of changing socialists to her point of view. Socialists minds are wired differently and by adulthood, the circuits cannot accept the concept of an individual. I think she was trying to rein in the Reardens and Taggarts that were too bust to see that they were supporting the parasites and not even complaining.
Before the destruction from Project X in Atlas Shrugged the coercion was still masked as the mostly "civilized" variety of the mixed economy. Its progression to open brutality paralleled the progression from the liberals to the rise of the violent New Left (and its further progression today) with the breaking point in the 1960s between Kennedy and the world of Lyndon Johnson. See Ayn Rand's "The Left: Old And New" in The Return of the Primitive.
In her introduction to the 2nd edition of We the Living she included a reference to Project X as illustrating the general principle of dependence of brutes on thinkers who support them:
"We the Living is not a story about Soviet Russia in 1925. It is a story about Dictatorship, any dictatorship, anywhere, at any time, whether it be Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, or—which this novel might do its share in helping to prevent—a socialist America..."
She describes the perpetual failures of Soviet "Five Year Plans" without freedom of thought and action, and how the intellectuals prop them up with propaganda, then:
"How many of such five-year plans will you need before you begin to understand? That depends on your intellectual honesty and your power of abstraction. But what about the Soviet possession of the atom bomb? Read the accounts of the trials of the scientists who were Soviet spies in England, Canada and the United States. But how can we explain the 'Sputnik'? Read the story of 'Project X' in Atlas Shrugged."
Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand referred to Project X and the mentality of a Robert Stadler scientist turning over the product of the mind to thugs out of his lack of concern for the "practical" in science. This is in the discussion of the role of science and technology in the virtue of productiveness, under "Productiveness as the Adjustment of Nature to Man":
"In a division-of-labor society, a man may properly specialize in cognition. But as long as the knowledge he acquires remains unembodied, it is not yet a productive achievement (nor does it work yet to support man's life). If the scientist or scholar is to qualify as productive, he must proceed in due course to the next step. He must give his discoveries some form of existence in physical reality and not merely in his consciousness—usually, by writing treatises or delivering lectures.
"A scientist may not care himself to carry the process of embodiment further. Life in the ivory tower, however, is not a license to disdain 'the practical world.' In particular, it is not a license to turn a discovery over promiscuously to all comers, regardless of its harmful potential and of their character and purpose. This is tantamount to abetting the worst elements of mankind in their work of destruction. For details, one may read the story of Project X in Atlas Shrugged."
The books purpose should be to change minds. However, nobody who thinks like a socialist thinks that their ideas would lead to that extreme. So the imagery alienates them from the real socialism threat. They see (or read) that torture scene, and they do not relate to it, they think that is "not my socialism", so in my mind it keeps the book isolated to those who are already supporters of Rand's ideas. Great shame.
Stadler had been a brilliant scientist who was not concerned with what he called the "practical" use of his theories. He supported the State Science institute as a "practical" means to get support he wanted, resulting in the very impractical consequences of brutality made possible by his intellect as coercion progressed to open brutality. https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
Ayn Rand was brilliant...
I found it odd, though. It put Galt on a pedastal, as if he was so good, even men revered him and were okay losing women to him.
I just took it to mean that Rand wanted it to be a respect thing, and a Personal Growth thing for Rearden... No better man to lose to, than Galt!
The speech was part of such a book, For The New Intellectual, written by Rand herself. I actually read that before moving on to Atlas and Fountainhead.
It's not bad 2014
I think I have too. The thing that was so amazing about Fountainhead and AS for me was that I always imagined those people where acting like that out of a secret goal to get want they want in live. I thought that was wrong (I still do), and it part of life to consider people may be lying to cheat you. (I still do.) The shocking thing for me was that they sometimes do it not to get what they want but rather because they don't want anything. They think wanting things is wrong except for wanting to impose misery and self-righteously on others. Not having any desires, they live for reactions from others. So wanting things for yourself and getting them through fair trades is the exact opposite of what they do.
I also remember that cashier at a curb service restaurant, where I would jump in the window to get the next order, and she would not want to give me the order--although my boss said, "The one who's at the window is the one who[or that] gets the order." But at least I outlasted her. You see, she wanted the orders to be all apportioned out equally.--Oh, well....
Is he the character who acted as a quazi-religious advisor to people at school, urging them to not follow their dreams.
"She promptly wrote me out of her will. "
She sounds awful, but one possible positive way to look at it is she was offering to pay you, via her will, for doing what she wanted. You refused the offer, so she didn't pay. It would be worse if she paid you in some way and said now you owe it humankind to follow her selfless example and pay it forward.
No matter how you slice it, though, manipulating a 19 y/o whose mother is struggling is low.
Wow. Sadly she sounds like she could be an Ayn Rand villain.