Summer Reading, Atlas Shrugged (Ch. 25-30)

In the final part of the book, the United States government collapses. Police and soldiers are spread tenuously across the country. The remaining rails of Taggart Transcontinental disintegrate, the masses begin to starve, and the Project X weapon is inadvertently triggered by a scuffle between Mr. Meigs and Dr. Stradler, over the control of a western metropolitan area. Such power struggles are ubiquitous in the continent; the power vacuum is replaced by men with crude means of coercion, namely guns. In the midst of the crisis, a group of saboteurs supposedly hired by the government attempt to overtake Rearden's factory. Francisco D'Anconia saves Rearden's life by slaughtering the trespassers, who are portrayed as inhuman.

After the incident, it is revealed that Francisco had worked in the mills since their last confrontation. The two finish their last conversation in fellowship and Rearden disappears to Galt's Gulch. Dagny is the sole protagonist left in the chaotic world. To her surprise, John Galt presents a jeremiad on the radio. The rant lasts for hours (it is 60 pages long) and gives Dagny a reason to fight for her survival. However, her curiosity leads her to sift through corporate reports, revealing that John Galt has been working with Taggart as an engineer for about a decade. Despite the fact that Galt has been stalking her, Dagny is further immersed in her love for him, and she traces Galt's records to his hovel. The government authorities arrive soon after, and Dagny pretends she was seeking Galt to report him. The officials believe her, and they arrest and torture Galt in an attempt to find his paradise. This does not work, and Dagny and her Gulch cronies hatch a scheme to free Galt from the torture chamber. In the process, Hank Rearden, Francisco D'Anconia, Dagny Taggart, and Ragnar Danneskjold kill the guards, feeling no sorrow for their deeds. The book ends with all the protagonists flying back to paradise and the antagonists and "neutral" characters degenerating society to barbarity.

All of the book's mysteries are solved by this part of the novel. Furthermore, the action within the plot is extended to include physical violence as the contrasting belief systems are tested. This does not, however, exclude the protagonists and their behavior. This is highlighted by Dagny's cold-blooded killing of an unarmed guard when he is unable to reason. This hypocritical act shows the lack of a global moral code amongst the characters. Indeed, the protagonists commit atrocities, which are not depicted as evil in the protagonists' minds. Again, there is the forced acceptance of one set of values by means of a gun; yet it is not the antagonists who instigate. This is the most extreme example of Rand's tenets.

The implications are subtle albeit deep. Two conclusions can be drawn from the aforementioned scene:

1. Humans are animals with a rational faculty. If a human does not reason, he/she does not differ from other animals. This theme is also put forth in Rand's outline of objectivism: An Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.
   
2. Morality is absolute. However, the group engaged in ethical considerations is the intelligentsia (in the form of the protagonists in Atlas Shrugged).
   

I do acknowledge that these conclusions may not have been Rand's intention, but they are drawn from the protagonists' extreme actions. It is important to note that in any "standard" literary work (if it could be simplified as such) cannot be assumed to embody the ideals of the author. However, Rand has stated countless times that this is her intention in Atlas Shrugged.

Summer Reading, Atlas Shrugged (Ch. 19-24)

In this next part of Atlas Shrugged, Dagny returns to her apartment for the first time since she "disappeared". There is a clear juxtaposition of the apartment and hectic city life to the countryside and its freedom. Francisco D'Anconia furthers this notion by appearing at Dagny's apartment and proclaiming "What future?" (Rand 584) in response to Dagny's impervious desires to remain with Taggart Transcontinental and the crumbling society. Hank Rearden walks in, leading Francisco to realize the love triangle he is caught in. Hank then hits Francisco for being with Dagny and for the copper ordeal, mentioned in the last post.

After Francisco leaves, Dagny receives a letter from Quentin Daniels stating his formal resignation from pursuing the motor--an act he describes as "giving up the world" (Rand 594). Dagny travels to save him from the destroyer, but the crew of the train she is on abandon it. On this journey she meets a vagabond, who reveals that John Galt worked at the 20th Century Motor company. This final piece of evidence allows the reader to deduce that Galt is the motor's creator. Just as Dagny puts the pieces together herself via monologue, she spots an airport in the distance. She flies a plane to Utah, where she sees the destroyer's plane lift off with Daniels. She pursues the plane until her fuel runs out, causing her to crash into the Rocky Mountains.

When she wakes up, she meets John Galt. He shows her "Galt's Gulch", where all the missing geniuses have created a seemingly Utopian society. As she greets her old friends, she falls in love with Galt. He shows her the achievements of the society, which is based on laissez faire economics and government. Despite the beauty of the valley, Dagny chooses to leave for one last chance with Taggart Transcontinental.

Meanwhile, Dr. Stradler is shown a demonstration of "Project X", a Weapon of Mass Destruction capable of vaporizing everything within a certain radius. Ferris developed the weapon to be used upon "domestic disturbances". This issue troubles Stradler but proves to be the final event leading to degradation to ruthlessness and inhumanity. After the display, the setting shifts back to New York, where Mrs. Rearden blackmails Dagny into announcing support for the regime. To everyone's shock, Dagny makes public her affair with Hank, removing her final incentive to obey the regime. The politicians decide to leave her alone, but they take near total control of Taggart through a government insider, Mr. Meigs. It is at this point that Hank realizes Dagny no longer loves him, because of the language she used in the radio conversation.

The ordeal causes Jim further embarrassment, so he and the politicians devise a plan to take control of D'Anconia copper. Jim gloats to his wife about it, revealing to her his true nature. She runs to Dagny to apologize for their past misunderstandings and commits suicide in a street shortly thereafter. All the while, Jim is having an affair with Mrs. Rearden. After the incident, he shows little reproach for his wife's death; in fact, he is jubilant in anticipation of August 2--the day of D'Anconia's nationalization. On August 2, the public learns that Francisco has vanished, and all of D'Anconia's possessions have carefully been destroyed. The politicians are furious, and Taggart's copper and track problems only get worse.

***

This segment of the book brilliantly displays Rand's ideas. Galt's Gulch is a Utopia-like antithesis of the society portrayed by Marx's and Engel's Communist Manifesto. The end result is the same--a society wherein all persons are equal and satisfied. However, the ideas are both very similar in their extremity and unattainability. They both reject many traits of humans that would obscure such a system. For example, greed, corruption, fear, and many other emotions cloud reason and would therefore impede or destroy a society governed solely by the latter. "Good faith" is just unrealistic amongst millions of human beings, each striving for their own goals.

Language is also shown as a powerful tool in clearing or obstructing reason, depending on its use.The people's perception of their surroundings and how they relate to ethics (in their crudest form: is what is going on good or bad?) are clouded by the language of the corrupt government. Dagny's speech and rejection of the regime's values and moral code prove to the public that they need not be held hostage by their lack of judgement.

It is also this segment that engenders the physical conflict that is resultant of a society based on necessity: Project X is a theoretical construct by Rand, furthering her claim that such a society would eventually become unstable and violent. This slow degeneration of the people--the masses of knowers-- shows how ethics evolve to fit the society's goals. At this point, the society's goals mirror those of the minority in power, which is modeled after the Politburo. Although I do not necessarily agree with many of Rand's ideas, they are a powerful reminder of the context of the book's publishing, a time when the values of freedom, self-governance, and capitalism were hotly contested.

Summer Reading, Atlas Shrugged (Ch. 13-18)

In this part of the novel, the plot begins to unravel. Lillian discovers that Hank has a mistress, yet she believes the mistress is but a cheap whore. She confronts Rearden, but he refuses to relinquish the affair. Back at his office, Rearden is visited by Francisco D'Anconia. The two grow closer together as Francisco attempts to persuade Rearden to abandon his mills:

"[Hank], if you saw Atlas...[with] blood running down his chest, his knees buckling, his arms trembling but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of his strength, and the greater his effort the heavier the world bore down on his shoulders--what would you tell him to do?"

"I...don't know. What would you tell him to do?"

"To shrug."

After working with Rearden on a dangerous repair, he realizes that Rearden's will is too strong and stops the persuasion.

In the next scene, it is Thanksgiving dinner with Hank and his family. Rearden argues with his brother Phillip and denies him alms. Henry realizes that his family and the government have been using and abusing him. Soon after Thanksgiving, Rearden stands trial for his illegal deal with Ken Dannager. Despite Dagny's best attempts to rescue him, Dannager caves under the pressure and disappears. Hank, on the other hand, delivers a stunning speech to the court and forces the judges into retreat. They fine him $5,000 instead of a prison sentence; Hank is victorious.

In the subsequent pages, many of Rand's ideals come forth through a discussion between Rearden and Francisco about sex. Rand's philosophy argues that the knower's mind and body are one irreducible unit, driven by reason. Furthermore, love is described as the finding of one's standard of value in another individual. However, this argument is shaky for it fails to account for a "love at first sight" situation. Nonetheless, after the chat, Francisco seems to forsake Rearden by creating an accident in which thousands of tons of copper are lost. Although Rearden promises he will kill Francisco if he sees him, Francisco swears by the woman he loves (which the reader knows is Dagny) that he is Rearden's friend.

Since Rearden cannot obtain copper, his orders are delayed and Taggart track begins to crumble. Accidents increase daily and Jim's insecurity grows. The result is a new directive calling for the liberalization of patents and copyrights, as well as the closing of all private research facilities. Hank at first refuses to sign the "gift certificate" for Rearden Metal, but Floyd Ferris blackmails Hank with knowledge of the secretive relationship. Hank reluctantly signs and begins to divorce Lillian by bribing judges--she will receive no alimony. Dagny resigns and escapes to her grandfather's secluded cabin. The only person that knows of her whereabouts is Eddie Willers.

Surprisingly, Francisco meets Dagny in the house, which she has labored to repair, and in the process, forget the railroad. Francisco reveals that he was not a playboy but realizes that she loves another man. Dagny then vows to return to the railroad, despite the impossible situation. Francisco promises to make the situation more difficult, to force her out of the business. During this conversation, a train gets stuck in a Colorado tunnel; all passengers but one die due to carbon monoxide poisoning. It is revealed that a politician inside forced the conductor ahead, despite the latter's opposition. Rearden, in the meantime, receives from a stranger a brick of gold in the wilderness. The stranger is Ragnar Danneskjold and his mission is to plunder all illegitimately acquired valuables and return them to the rightful owner.

It is in these dense chapters that Rand's very conservative, even libertarian, attitude and views are displayed. Her belief is the antithesis of the then-emerging communist ideal (1940-1950s). Her own ideal consists of freedom by giving all power to the knower, thereby severely limiting the government to only law enforcement and protection. In her view, income tax and a limited welfare state are both wrong. She claims that the knower is his own end, and his actions are the means. Through this, she argues that rationality is the only key to man's survival.

At this point, I have finished the book and must admit it was a truly brilliant read. Although I identify myself as a fiscal conservative and social moderate, I disagree with many of Rand's views. It is the aforementioned view that the government should be left to protection that I find myself opposing ardently. After all, is society not a measure of a civilization's progress and a reflection of the aggregate accomplishments of a people? If so, there are certain social standards the must be met with the help of the government.

Summer Reading, Atlas Shrugged (Ch. 5-12)

The next segment of the book starts with Dagny Taggart, Ellis Wyatt, and Hank Rearden on the site of the new Rio Norte Line. The chief engineer has quit and the labor union prohibits workers from handling Rearden Metal. Since Rearden Metal is deemed a risk, Taggart stock crashes and Dagny formulates a plan to create the track via a temporary business, thereby slackening the pressure on Taggart Transcontinental.

Mouch becomes leader of the Bureau of Economic Planning (a socialist entity, gaining much power in later chapters), and he passes the Equalization of Opportunity Bill, hampering big businesses by outlawing monopolization. Shortly thereafter, Rearden Metal is proved invaluable through Dagny's project, which Jim takes credit for. Dagny and Rearden begin a lustful albeit secretive relationship at Wyatt's house.

Dagny and Rearden begin to comb the country for any remaining machine parts as new tools become increasingly difficult to buy. The two stumble across a destitute town on the outskirts of the famous 20th Century Motor Co. Inside the factory, Dagny finds a motor that could, in theory, run on static in the air; She and Rearden start a fruitless quest for the motor's inventor. Meanwhile, Moush issues a socialist directive that severely damages Wyatt Oil. Wyatt disappears after setting fire to his property, leaving behind "Wyatt's Torch", a symbol later seen in the novel as an eerie reminder of disappearing geniuses.

After Wyatt quits, there is a state of emergency as oil supply greatly decreases. Other geniuses start disappearing as they are hurt by Mouch's socialist directives, labeled "for the good of the society". Jim and his inept cronies make tremendous personal profits via government subsidies, further damaging the economy. Dagny then hires Quentin Daniels, the last great physicist, to work on the motor. Shortly thereafter, Jim marries a common girl, Cherryl Brooks. Francisco D'Anconia surprisingly appears at the wedding and delivers a great speech about the virtues of money. (Can be found here: http://www.atlasshrugged.tv/speech.htm).

This part of the book begins to shift the setting from capitalist democracy (like that before the early 1900s) to a fictional socialist oligarchy. Rand begins to polarize the characters as protagonists:

• Rearden
• Dagny
• The disappearing geniuses (Wyatt and many others)
• Various secondary characters (Eddie Willers, etc.)

and antagonists:

• Wesley Mouch and his bureaucracy (which later becomes the full government)
• Jim Taggart and similar businessmen (Orren Boyle, etc.)
  
• Modern scientists and philosophers (Dr. Ferris, Dr. Stradler, etc.)
• Secondary characters (the depicted aristocracy)

The protagonists can already be seen as capitalists; the antagonists, socialists. Interestingly, Rand incorporates many Kantian beliefs into the socialist characters, while promoting her own objectivist beliefs via the protagonists. Throughout these chapters, secondary characters (antagonists) refer to humanity as confused and helpless. The analytic-synthetic separation is present, and the "new-age" antagonist philosophers deem logic as arbitrary and empiricism as impractical. This sharp divide is seen as black-and-white with no middle ground.

Meanwhile, the ever-disappearing protagonists accept material values and rational self-interest, as evidenced by Francisco D'Anconia's diatribe. These views are the antithesis of the antagonists' beliefs (like Pinochet and Stradler) that the "heart" wins over the mind and distribution should be based by "need" (which Rand later claims leads to competition for neediness and ineptitude, rather than efficiency and reason).

The book is indeed very interesting--this section of the book is the rising action. This literary work embeds philosophy in the form of a struggle between the main views (especially the extreme nominalists, who hold that reality is not real) and the objectivists. Ayn Rand also begins to discuss reason as the knower's only means of survival, since a human is, after all, an animal with a rational faculty. I will tackle further epistemological topics, including those of objectivism, in subsequent posts (based on Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology [http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0452010306&itm=1].

Universals and Rationality

Today, I will post some details of view against universals and Kantian rationality.

First, it is important to note what a universal is. Heraclitus proclaimed that entities are always changing (you can never step into the same river twice). Plato responded to this with his idea of a "form" whereby all entities are only essences of a perfect form. Aristotle then furthered this view by asserting that abstractions exist in reality but exist only in concretes, or metaphysical essences, and that our concepts refer to these essences.

The philosophical community has largely accepted these beliefs (St. Augustine to Kant to post-Kantian). In fact, all Platonists, realists, nominalists, and conceptualists believe in universals in one way or another. However, many problems arise when dealing with universals.

An example would be a beach towel (what the hell-it's summer).For simplicity's sake, let's pretend that our domain of possible colors is red and polka-dotted blue. Now take a red towel. Metaphysically, one may assert that the towel contains "redness" (abstracted from the perfect red) and "towelness" (abstracted from the perfect towel). Since the towel is red, red would be a defining characteristic and inarguably, an element of the domain of a perfect towel (which, remember, can be only either red or polka-dotted). This either-or situation, however, is also a necessity of the perfect towel. By Aristotle's axiom of identity (a is a), the perfect towel can be only either red or polka dotted (also, it would be absurd to say that a towel is both solid-colored and patterned). If the actual towel is either-or and the perfect towel is either-or, by Aristotle's law of identity, the perfect towel can not accommodate all ranges of possibilities of the actual towel--a contradiction.

On the topic of rationality, Kant "regarded rationality as behavior guided by rules: 'Everything in Nature works in accordance with laws. Only a rational being has the power to act in accordance with his idea of laws...reason is required to derive actions from laws.'" (Abel 180). Abel himself states "there seems no rational way to put in order such incompatible human ends as selfishness and altruism, justice and mercy, freedom and security, our own interests and those of later generations." (Abel 181). However, I challenge these views with my own interpretation of rationality. Rationality is the subjective comparison of any action to one's values (or standards). Abel questions the rationality of a germaphobe's refusal to shake hands or a farmer's choice to spray his crops with DDT (prior to knowledge of negative effects). Simply enough, there is no one answer to what is or what is not rational. Each individual has his/her own standards or values and he/she determines whether an action was rational depending on these values. Since values are a reflection of one's reason and knowledge (for example, you cannot believe that gene manipulation is wrong unless you have some grasp of the concepts behind it, be it your own knowledge and judgment or an outside source's), spraying crops with DDT would seem very rational since:

• there are no known negative effects (at the time)
• prevents insects from destroying crops thereby increasing profit.

Unlike Hempel's view that "man is a rational being...he can give a reason for anything he does!", my view is that rationality is personal, subjective, and a reflection of one's values.

Chapters 1-6 / 30; Atlas Shrugged

The book I have been reading is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. In this 1100-page parable, Rand applies her unique philosophy, objectivism.

The novel starts with Eddie Willers, assistant to Dagny Taggart, COO of Taggart Transcontinental, the largest albeit crumbling railroad in the United States. Dagny struggles with her brother and CEO, Jim Taggart. Dagny is portrayed as the “brains” of the Taggart operation; Jim appeases the board of directors but has little influence over the entire railway.

Dagny hears that the Rio Norte Line is crumbling while her brother builds the San-Sebastian Line, connecting the United States to Mexican copper mines. She investigates the Rio Norte and hears a young brakeman whistling the unmistakable tune of Richard Halley—one that could not possibly exist since Halley mysterious vanished 8 years earlier. The San-Sebastian mines are described as a potentially dangerous venture, because the mines are in danger of being nationalized and Francisco D’Anconia, Dagny’s ex-lover and owner of the mines, has become a worthless playboy. When Dagny returns, Owen Kellog, a top employee, quits for no apparent reason and asks upon leaving: “Who is John Galt?” (the book’s slang term of all that is hopeless).

The plot then shifts to Hank Rearden, inventor of Rearden Metal. Dagny has told him to create miles of the metal for rails to replace the broken Rio Norte Line. This is against Jim’s will because he is friends with Orren Boyle, a “little guy” in the metal industry who Jim claims to deserve a chance in the “ferocious” world. Shortly thereafter, Boyle; Jim; Paul Larkin, Rearden’s “friend”; and Wesley Mouch, Rearden’s Washington lobbyist; discuss plans to choke-off Dan Conway’s Phoenix-Durango rail, a competing railway with the Rio Norte. Mouch then leaves Rearden for a job in Washington, and Jim, through an anti-dog-eat-dog rule, becomes sole rail owner in the West whilst Conway retires. Also, Rearden is forced to give up mines to Larkin due to Mouch’s legislation against owning multiple industries (Dagny is infuriated with both outcomes because she is a laissez-faire capitalist).

Sebastian D’Anconia and Jim Taggart both lose their property due to Mexican nationalization. Jim finds that the mines had been fruitless and becomes infuriated.

The first 6 chapters of the book, summarized above, already display much of Rand’s philosophy. Objectivism holds that all reality is objective and knowledge is based solely on perceived facts and events. The plot shows political corruption and the wrongs of socialism, as well as people’s beliefs in subjective values. The book gets into the perspective of ruthlessly efficient businesspeople, which perceive their options and then act objectively in making a decision. This applies to all events in life—taking an objective standard of value (the ends) and applying a moral code (the means) to achieve the standard. Rand shows this process in the business world and later in the novel (I read a little further) applies it to all metaphysical actions and choices. I personally love Ayn Rand’s philosophy, despite the few problems in it (such as the premise that all human beings will act rationally and honestly if given the chance). Rand is one of the first and only people to apply objective, metaphysical laws into the ideal of capitalism, thereby binding reason to the areas of knowledge.

Politics

This post is just a short rant about logical fallacies and poor reasoning that Mark Green, Democrat for NY Attorney General, displayed in an interview (with Larry King, I believe).

While flipping through the channels on my television, I caught Mark Green smearing his Republican opponent for his past investment patterns. The first argument was along the lines of:
-My opponent was an executive of company X.
-Company X invested in Dubai/UAE interestes.
-Dubai/UAE have boycotted Israel.
-My opponent is against Israel.

Firstly, this argument has a faulty analogy and is thereby illogical. Secondly, the mess of premises and conclusion that remains is a guilt by association or poisoning the well argument. This form of ad hominem attempts to repudiate Mark Green's opponent by attacking the opponent's company and associates. Mark Green also claims that his opponent's political motivation is corporate, not social. This is a case of the ad hominem vested interest fallacy.

Both arguments are clearly fallacious, yet I have a feeling that many people will support such arrantly illogical and unreasonable claims.