The core of Ayn Rand’s philosophy revolves around selfishness – “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine” (670). In this novel, John Galt is portrayed as the epitome of selfishness. He is an ideal figure described as greater than those around him; in fact, he might be the greatest man in the world. He seeks only his self-interest and the pursuit of his own happiness with no regard to others. Ironically enough, every other man should forgo their self-interest in the presence of John Galt. For instance, Galt’s love for Dagny is perceived as more important than Rearden and Francisco’s love for her. What is so great about John Galt? Why should everyone cater to his needs and desires? What do most of Rand’s readers see in him? Isn’t it against Rand’s philosophy for Francisco and Rearden to deny their own self-interest and give up on Dagny?
Just as John Galt is idealized as the perfect man, Dagny Taggart is idealized as the “perfect” woman. Throughout the novel, she can do no wrong. Somehow, she manages to win the hearts of the three most prominent men in the novel: John Galt, Hank Rearden, and Francisco D’Anconia. Her most troubling relationship is with Rearden. By choosing to be with him, she is enabling infidelity. However, this is brushed aside because she is portrayed as being more worthy of Rearden’s love than Lillian Rearden. Unlike Dagny, Lillian is depicted as manipulative and evil – always seeking to use guilt to enslave Hank Rearden. Rand casts Lillian as an unsympathetic character only seeking to hinder Rearden from achieving his potential. This also serves to make Rearden’s infidelity seem justifiable. However, I believe that Lillian Rearden is the actual victim in the scenario. Though some of her actions are troubling, she is probably right in complaining that her husband neglects all family commitments. If he never meant to be a family man, then why did Rearden marry her in the first place? Just as Lillian claims, it does seem probable that Rearden only sees her as another object to add to his collection. He may never have loved her or valued her as anything other than a possession. Can society exist without the family structure? Are commitments to be tossed aside once they no longer serve an individual’s self-interest?
Dagny Taggart is above all familial commitments. She is not a particularly young woman, yet remains unmarried, and committed only to her work. Although she is employed in the family business, Dagny holds no respect or affection for her brother James. This is understandable – like Lillian, James Taggart is portrayed as one of the most contemptible characters in the novel. Indeed, his actions are rarely justifiable, yet serve to make him an unrealistic representation of all that Rand detests. His belief in altruism leads to his ultimate downfall. Nevertheless, Rand fails to convince me that altruism is immoral. James Taggart is merely a two-dimensionally crafted caricature that Rand creates as a straw-man argument that she proceeds to demolish. In order to prove a point, one must examine opposing arguments and intelligently refute them. Rand never attempts to deconstruct views contrary to her own. Instead, she dismisses them as futile and continues to exaggerate her case.
Some people may argue that Atlas Shrugged is reflective of our society today. In particular, one could draw comparisons between the current government shutdown and the strikers’ revolt against the looters’ system. As most of us are aware, the shutdown was caused by a political disagreement over the Affordable Care Act. In order to attempt to repeal this act, a group of Congressmen have caused the government to close, resulting in massive, if temporary, unemployment. This situation parallels the political strife in the novel. Both the strikers and the politicians chose to withdraw from responsibility, rather than work through their disagreements in the conventional manner. Just as the government shutdown has hurt many ordinary Americans, so did the strike in Atlas Shrugged.
Overall, the book is a successful testimony to Rand’s personal beliefs. I understand why people may find it appealing, but I cannot abide by that philosophy myself.
Just as John Galt is idealized as the perfect man, Dagny Taggart is idealized as the “perfect” woman. Throughout the novel, she can do no wrong. Somehow, she manages to win the hearts of the three most prominent men in the novel: John Galt, Hank Rearden, and Francisco D’Anconia. Her most troubling relationship is with Rearden. By choosing to be with him, she is enabling infidelity. However, this is brushed aside because she is portrayed as being more worthy of Rearden’s love than Lillian Rearden. Unlike Dagny, Lillian is depicted as manipulative and evil – always seeking to use guilt to enslave Hank Rearden. Rand casts Lillian as an unsympathetic character only seeking to hinder Rearden from achieving his potential. This also serves to make Rearden’s infidelity seem justifiable. However, I believe that Lillian Rearden is the actual victim in the scenario. Though some of her actions are troubling, she is probably right in complaining that her husband neglects all family commitments. If he never meant to be a family man, then why did Rearden marry her in the first place? Just as Lillian claims, it does seem probable that Rearden only sees her as another object to add to his collection. He may never have loved her or valued her as anything other than a possession. Can society exist without the family structure? Are commitments to be tossed aside once they no longer serve an individual’s self-interest?
Dagny Taggart is above all familial commitments. She is not a particularly young woman, yet remains unmarried, and committed only to her work. Although she is employed in the family business, Dagny holds no respect or affection for her brother James. This is understandable – like Lillian, James Taggart is portrayed as one of the most contemptible characters in the novel. Indeed, his actions are rarely justifiable, yet serve to make him an unrealistic representation of all that Rand detests. His belief in altruism leads to his ultimate downfall. Nevertheless, Rand fails to convince me that altruism is immoral. James Taggart is merely a two-dimensionally crafted caricature that Rand creates as a straw-man argument that she proceeds to demolish. In order to prove a point, one must examine opposing arguments and intelligently refute them. Rand never attempts to deconstruct views contrary to her own. Instead, she dismisses them as futile and continues to exaggerate her case.
Some people may argue that Atlas Shrugged is reflective of our society today. In particular, one could draw comparisons between the current government shutdown and the strikers’ revolt against the looters’ system. As most of us are aware, the shutdown was caused by a political disagreement over the Affordable Care Act. In order to attempt to repeal this act, a group of Congressmen have caused the government to close, resulting in massive, if temporary, unemployment. This situation parallels the political strife in the novel. Both the strikers and the politicians chose to withdraw from responsibility, rather than work through their disagreements in the conventional manner. Just as the government shutdown has hurt many ordinary Americans, so did the strike in Atlas Shrugged.
Overall, the book is a successful testimony to Rand’s personal beliefs. I understand why people may find it appealing, but I cannot abide by that philosophy myself.
No comments:
Post a Comment