Showing posts with label John Galt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Galt. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 21, 2014


The Myth of John Galt

“We never think entirely alone: we think in company, in a vast collaboration; we work with the workers of the past and of the present. [Across] the whole intellectual world, each one finds in those about him the initiation, help, verification, [and] encouragement that he needs”

Antoine Sertillanges, La vie intellectuelle, 1920

No one knows who it was that first discovered iron, but legend has it that a man named Magnes who lived in an area of Greece called Magnesia was the first to notice the phenomena of magnetism. His dog was probably named ‘Maggie’.

Less legendary are the writings of Lucretius and Pliny the Elder[i]. Later, it was Hans Oersted who showed that magnetism was related to electricity, and it was left to Maxwell to codify the phenomena and establish the basis for the electromagnetic theory.

From there, it was a whole cast of actors, over many years, each making their own contribution, that lead to the innovation of the electric motor[ii]. John Galt, hero of Ayn Rand’s second-rate work of fiction, Atlas Shrugged, ‘took’ these ideas and incorporated them into his imaginary ‘static motor’.

The same dynamic occurred with respect to machine bearings, without which any motor would be worthless.

Henry Timken is credited with the invention of the roller bearing, and was awarded patent number 606635 by the United States patent office[iii]. But roller bearings were actually invented thousands of years before Timken was even a twinkle in his mother’s eyes.

The first use of roller bearings was by the ancient Egyptians, to build the pyramids. And even they couldn’t have made use of the idea without the invention of trees, and there’s no consensus on who invented them.

One can now extrapolate this theme of continuity to the invention of Reardenite.

The point of all this is that no one stands alone in space and time, no solitary figure changes the course of history. And, when there is a need, someone will step in to fill that need.

Rand, who claims to espouse values that can only be derived through logic and observation, fails to notice the continuity of the innovative dynamic: one person improves upon another’s work; one person sees the possibilities that others overlook, or one person combines the work of several others and ends up with an entirely new product.

In each case, as it is in reality, one adds to what’s already there, made possible only because that previous person did the same thing. Collectively (that word!) this is called history, which is a function of reality, unlike Galt, which is not.

None of this would matter if not for the many acolytes of this 3rd rate fantasy. Too many of our current policy makers and influencer's read the silliness that is Atlas Shrugged (usually while at a young age, more susceptible flights of fancy) and decided that she’s right. And worse. Among many of Ayn’s acolytes are those who cherry-pick aspects of her worldview, discarding the very threads of logic that would otherwise make it whole. 

In the same way that the flu spreads from one person to another, so has Rand’s self-defeating philosophy spread, and the result is that today we have many people in our society who fancy themselves as clones of Galt, who espouse her philosophy.

Paul Ryan fits this bill. This man is in a position to affect every person in the country, yet demonstrates no abilities that would legitimately place him there. Sure, he’s graduated college, but he parasitically used his father’s Social Security benefits to so. And, true, he has managed to get himself elected to congress. So did Gopher, from The Love Boat. So, no bragging allowed.

The personal independence that the philosophy embraces would not be possible without the sacrifices and hard work of those who came before, in many cases the sacrifice of others was a product of altruism, a despised activity in her constructed universe.

Never mind that many of these same people have never accomplished anything on their own, at the time the book was read by them, and therefore had no real-life experience to compare the fiction to. For someone such as Ayn Rand, who repudiates the philosophy she’s invented through the sheer implausibility of the notion of the ‘independent man’, to inspire others to a pretended state of independence, the irony of it all is invisible and therefore unreal.

Just like John Galt.


[i] http://www.howmagnetswork.com/history.html
[ii] For a very well defined and interesting timeline of the electric motor, see http://www.eti.kit.edu/english/1376.php and http://www.eti.kit.edu/english/1390.php
[iii] http://inventors.findthebest.com/q/387/2770/When-did-the-famous-inventor-Henry-Timken-invent-Roller-Bearing-for-Vehicles-Roller-Bearing-Tapered-Roller-Bearings

Tuesday, May 6, 2014

A Is Not A and Contradictions Do Not Exist

In Ayn Rand’s second-rate effort at creating a fictional world, “Atlas Shrugged”, the ‘producers’ (or ‘creative minds’ as Ayn would say) decide to punish the ‘moochers’ (or ‘reactive minds, as L.Ron Hubbard would say), not for actually mooching, as one might expect, but for not showing adequate appreciation for the producers’ efforts, all the while contradicting what is (or should be – according to the fantasy world Rand has set up) incontrovertible.

I’ll give you a moment here.

That is to say, if money, as the Randian ethos commands, is the most important metric[1] (Rand was known to wear a dollar sign brooch and a six-foot dollar sign was on display at her funeral[2]) in which to measure the worth of a person’s life, then the heroes of Atlas Shrugged are guilty of abrogating the most important tenet of her writing: Reason.

Reason dictates (according to Rand and her acolytes[3],[4],[5],[6]) that people must pursue their own self-interests, and that altruism is anathema[7]. Therefore ‘Going Galt’ is, in realty, an act of financial suicide (or at least, self-cutting). It also leaves the so-called ‘moochers’ control of the means of production. In other words, it is a gift.

Who then, are they really punishing? They left their railroads and all their other 1920’s era steam-punk production capacity in the hands of lesser beings, now the newly-minted next-generation of ‘productive minds’ who can’t be expected to withstand the pressure from the ‘moochers’ any better than they themselves could. The only real losers in this scenario are those occupying Galt’s Gulch.

Why any of this matters at all is because it illustrates well how distorted, and backward, many of the self-proclaimed adherents to Rand’s philosophy (particularly those holding public office, and even a few weasels too timid to run for office - yet demand inclusion to public discussions) act in real life. What’s worse, they seem not to be able to understand how wrong they’ve gotten their dear philosophy.

That’s not all their fault because Rand herself gets confused about it. If everything worth thinking or feeling should be the product of reason, how can she explain the irrational response of the ‘producers’ to go on ‘strike’, which will cost them money (the only true metric in life) just so they can punish the ‘moochers’ for not appreciating them more?

When did Rand assign appreciation value? Well, she never says it directly in any of her writings, but there it is in abundance at Galt’s Gulch. At least one pseudo-Randian values gratitude (and love), even while bitching he doesn’t get any.

That’s because despite all the chest-thumping and declarations of self-reliance and the refusal to acknowledge the need for those one looks down on[8], people, even those that inhabit Rand’s second-rate fiction, desire the acknowledgment, if not outright love, of other human beings.

As far as this silly notion that the captains of industry would ever ‘Go Galt’ – they already have – but they haven't gone all in.

After Obama was elected some claimed that this was exactly what some industries where doing – “Going Galt” was the term used[9], and it truly seemed that this was the case. If so, they were, in real life, purposefully diminishing their own worth.

I’ve noticed more than a few people talk about how they were ‘blown away’ or otherwise impressed with Rand’s work when they first encountered it, whether early in life or not, though usually the younger they were, the more they were impressed[10].

That’s exactly what happened with Paul Ryan. Though he’s tried to make the claim that his devotion to Rand is an ‘urban myth’, a Rand-style contradiction in itself.[11].

Rand’s philosophy has turned out to far more pliable and fertile than she could have meant it to be: A is A, but it is also not A. Contradictions do and do not exist.

Maybe she’s a better writer than I give her credit for.


[1] http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/fountainhead/context.html
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/1982/03/10/nyregion/followers-of-ayn-rand-provide-a-final-tribute.html
[3] http://paulryan.house.gov/
[4] http://www.paul.senate.gov/
[5] http://joshblackman.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ayn-rand-school-tots.png
[6] http://www.atr.org/grover-norquist-a3016
[7] SparkNotes Editors. “SparkNote on Atlas Shrugged.” SparkNotes.com. SparkNotes LLC. 2003. Web. 30 Apr. 2014.
[8] “Ayn Rand and the World She Made”, Anne C. Heller 2009. Random House, NY
[9] http://washingtonindependent.com/32772/battling-obama-by-going-galt
[10] Ibid.
[11] National Review April 26, 2012