The Psychology of Some of Ayn Rand's Characters

[Nate Smith 0]

This quote is from a conversation between Dagny Taggart and Eddie Willers in Atlas Shrugged.

"Why do you like Francisco?" she asked him weeks later, when Francisco was gone.

Eddie looked astonished; it had never occurred to him that the feeling could be questioned. He said, "He makes me feel safe."

She said, "He makes me expect excitement and danger."

What is the significance of their answers? What do their answers say about each of them?

I think that their answers relate to their metaphysical value judgements. Eddie considers evil to be important, and therefore it bothers him more than Dagny who sees it as impotent, and isn't concerned with it.

If I am correct, I would appreciate some elaboration on this point. This is one aspect of Objectivism that I haven't fully grasped. While a false philosophy may be impotent in that it can't be useful in dealing with reality, a group of large enough people with false ideas can be dangerous, particularly in politics. For example, in We the Living, I've never understood how Kira isn't bothered more psychologically by the conditions of her country. I'll admit that I am more bothered by the problems in the US than she is with Russia.

In addition, are there parallels between Eddie and Leo? I always assumed that Leo was supposed to represent the philosophy of someone troubled by the fact that evil exists, in other words, Leo is what Eddie would be (psychologically) in Russia.

If my assessment is correct, why are Kira and Dagny correct, and how are Leo and Eddie mistaken?

[Rose Lake 0]

****SPOILERS**** about We the Living and a bit for AS.

I think the issue for Leo, is that he is not as strong psychologically as Kira. Ayn Rand's idea is that only the most extraordinary people survive spiritually, long enough to attempt escape, under dictatorship. And Kira's spirit is still intact at the end, but she is killed. But Leo's spirit is killed, so he does not try to escape. Some interesting related facts are that, the real-life character on whom Leo was based was executed by the NKVD in 1937 (from Jeff Britting's illustrated biography Ayn Rand, p.22). Also, Ayn Rand said that if she had stayed in Russia "I would probably have been dead within one year." ibid, p. 26.

Eddie is not at the point of understanding the evil by which he is surrounded. So, unlike those in Galt Valley, who have each finally come to understand that there is no alternative but to strike, Eddie cannot give up the world as he sees it in order to go to Galt Valley. In AS, Eddie's physical fate is very uncertain to say the least, though when we see him last, his spirit is still intact.

I see this spirit in real life, in many of those who go to Iraq. I can't help but feel that, given the horrifying "rules of engagement" they are expected to follow, that they should not choose to go. But given that they are fighting for their values, and what they know - if they did not go they would conceive of that as giving up, which is not an option for them, as it was not for Eddie.

[Rose Lake 0]

I guess I should add that I do not think that either Leo or Eddie are mistaken. In Leo's case, he is simply not as strong as Kira. And in Eddie's case, he has not yet come to see the nature and extent of the evil that the more intelligent characters have come to see.

[jenbryn 0]

I think Kira could have said what Roark famously said about pain "only going down to a certain point". That just so perfectly captures the kind of spirit that isn't crushed by hardship.

The contrast between Dagny and Eddie in the quote about Francisco seems to be a different issue, though. Dagny welcomes excitement and danger, because she knows she can handle it and master it. Eddie, in contrast, wants to be safe, because he doesn't have the abilities that Dagny has. He needs the great men like Francisco to "clear the way" for him--its not something he can do himself. This moment really foretells Eddie's eventual fate.

But I agree with Rose Lake, I don't think Eddie's spirit is crushed by this. So there is a difference between him and Leo in that regard.

[Rose Lake 0]

But I agree with Rose Lake, I don't think Eddie's spirit is crushed by this. So there is a difference between him and Leo in that regard.

I hope this is not a direct comparison, because the scenarios in the two novels are quite different. Leo and Kira have been living under dictatorship for some time - a place in which nothing is possible but death or escape. There is no Galt Valley.

The situation in AS is a nation that is descending into anarchy and tyranny, but because the strikers have withdrawn and built Galt Valley, the ultimate fate of the nation is uncertain. Eddie knows about Galt Valley, but has not yet understood the strikers. He is still bewildered. Leo, on the other hand, sees perfectly well what has happened in his country, and loses his will to escape.

In AS, given the nature of the strikers, I think that one can assume that the judge's corrections to the contradictions in the constitution and these statements "The road is cleared," said Galt. "We're going back to the world" mean that the strikers return after the collapse, and rebuild a proper nation. But this is all on the level of logical projection and allegory, while the Communism portrayed in We the Living actually existed. If one did not escape, it meant certain death -- in body and/or spirit.

[PhilO 0]

What is the significance of their answers? What do their answers say about each of them?

I always took their answers to indicate something about their own aggressiveness/self-assertiveness. With conventional characters, the answers they gave would be more typical of the other gender: A woman feeling safe (protected), a man feeling that he wants to also experience excitement and danger. There are other allusions to this, for example, when (out of lack of knowledge), Cheryl states to Dagny after marrying Jim, "I'm the woman of the family now" and Dagny responds with "That's all right, I'm the man" (this is from memory but I think it's quite close.) That does not of course mean that Dagny isn't feminine in context, but in her career, her psychology seems to be more typically male.

I think that also shows why a romantic match between Dagny and Eddie would never work psychologically, even if their intelligence were better matched. Eddie is a good man, but he is not really a hero and not as strong as Dagny, and it takes men such as Francisco or Rearden or Galt for her to have a romantic relationship (ultimately Galt, because of the three, he's the strongest, most confident, and most brilliantly capable of dealing with reality.)

[Nate Smith 0]

I think the issue for Leo, is that he is not as strong psychologically as Kira. Ayn Rand's idea is that only the most extraordinary people survive spiritually, long enough to attempt escape, under dictatorship. And Kira's spirit is still intact at the end, but she is killed. But Leo's spirit is killed, so he does not try to escape.

I guess I should add that I do not think that either Leo or Eddie are mistaken. In Leo's case, he is simply not as strong as Kira.

I'm curious about this issue of strength in contrast with the idea that evil is impotent. I always thought Kira's character was able to remain "strong", because she understood the nature of evil and its impotence. Therefore she sees the miserable conditions that she lives under as an unfortunate historical concidence. This allows her to maintain a benevolnt view of reality. Leo on the other hand has drawn the false philosphical conclusion that reality is malevolent. This is what breaks his spirit. Isn't this what Ayn Rand meant by not being able to distinguish between the metaphysical and the man-made?

Therefore Leo's loss of spirit and Kira's continued spirit aren't issues of strength but of false vs. correct premises, and Leo was. What do you think?

[Nate Smith 0]

I want to make my previous point a little better with an experience that I (and probably most people who become Objectivists) can relate to. When I first started getting interested in ideas (somewhere in my teens), I remember noticing how easily many people would just dismiss arguments they couldn't answer as one more example of how reason can show anything to be true. Most people's opinions of philosophy are very negative, because they believe it can be used to prove anything. Most of these people reject reason and argumentation, and as a result most of their philosophy is one big floating set of principles. The metaphysical premise they have accepted here is "A and not-A are possible". We are all familiar with these type of people.

For whatever reason, I was explicitly aware that reason couldn't show that two contradictory beliefs could both be true. I don't know where I learned this or how I figured it out, while others didn't. But as a result, I listened closely to what was being said, and occassionally I could find the flaw in the arguments. Most of the time I couldn't, but I never gave up on reason. This didn't require any strength on my part, just one correct premise that far too few people seem to have. I think this example is analogous to the difference between Kira and Leo.

My point is that I don't think that strength is a very important part of ethics. I'm not ready to say that there is no place for it; I don't know what it's place is yet.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

This didn't require any strength on my part, just one correct premise that far too few people seem to have.... My point is that I don't think that strength is a very important part of ethics. I'm not ready to say that there is no place for it; I don't know what it's place is yet.

We act on our premises, both conscious and subconscious (hopefully being the same), but strength of character manifests as the will -- the conscious volitional choice -- to always remain in full focus and in contact with reality, and even one with the best premises can choose to act otherwise. Strength of character is important to ethics as that which makes and maintains the proper ethical commitment of an integrated man.

[Nate Smith 0]

We act on our premises, both conscious and subconscious (hopefully being the same), but strength of character manifests as the will -- the conscious volitional choice -- to always remain in full focus and in contact with reality, and even one with the best premises can choose to act otherwise. Strength of character is important to ethics as that which makes and maintains the proper ethical commitment of an integrated man.

Is strength always necessary? Speaking for myself, strength was never needed to remain conscious. I was eager to do it. Many people find discussing ideas distasteful and unpleasant, but that's because of their premises. I see strength as necessary when there is some disconnect between one's conscious and subconscious beliefs or values.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Is strength always necessary? Speaking for myself, strength was never needed to remain conscious. I was eager to do it. Many people find discussing ideas distasteful and unpleasant, but that's because of their premises.

The more integrated you are and the more that you act on the correct premises, the more natural it becomes to stay in full focus and to keep the full context in mind. But it was strength of character that led to such a natural state, and it is that same strength which underlies its maintenance. A physically strong man remains strong even when not completely exercising his strength. Likewise with strength of character.

I see strength as necessary when there is some disconnect between one's conscious and subconscious beliefs or values.

That conflict might occur as an error in knowledge, but acknowledging that as fact and resolving that conflict stems from the very same source -- the honesty and integrity that reflects strength of character - which maintains a general commitment to reality.

[Nate Smith 0]

The more integrated you are and the more that you act on the correct premises, the more natural it becomes to stay in full focus and to keep the full context in mind. But it was strength of character that led to such a natural state, and it is that same strength which underlies its maintenance.

I still don't see where the strength is needed. Young children are naturally very curious; this doesn't occur as the result of strength. It is the result of poor cultural and philosophical influences that most people never see that point of ideas and philosophy, and that curiosity fades. If one of these people were to try and rehabilitate themselves and break old habits, then perhaps strength would be necessary.

[free spirit 0]

strength of character manifests as the will -- the conscious volitional choice -- to always remain in full focus and in contact with reality

I completely agree with this statement.

In my personal experience, I have always felt my strength through my immense will to live-- will to understand.

It's exciting and easy for me to learn and think about different issues because I love it, but it's my will (strength) that allows me to keep pursuing it no matter what other circumstances I encounter, like bad environment, disappointment, personal challenges to be overcome etc...

But it was strength of character that led to such a natural state, and it is that same strength which underlies its maintenance. A physically strong man remains strong even when not completely exercising his strength. Likewise with strength of character.

Stephen,

I think that different men have different degrees of strength. Would you agree? What does the varying degrees of strength depend on? The strength of their values? How integrated they are?

~Carrie~

[Stephen Speicher 0]

The more integrated you are and the more that you act on the correct premises, the more natural it becomes to stay in full focus and to keep the full context in mind. But it was strength of character that led to such a natural state, and it is that same strength which underlies its maintenance.

I still don't see where the strength is needed. Young children are naturally very curious; this doesn't occur as the result of strength. It is the result of poor cultural and philosophical influences that most people never see that point of ideas and philosophy, and that curiosity fades. If one of these people were to try and rehabilitate themselves and break old habits, then perhaps strength would be necessary.

I think you are missing the basic role of volition. Volition requires effort, which is why two young children growing up in the same circumstances might characteristically act the opposite of each other. When confronted with the unknown, one child exerts the effort to grasp and understand, while another gives up early in the process. This volitional aspect underlies all values and premises, and good values and premises will not be maintained in the absence of the volitional effort to stay in focus, to keep the full context in mind and to be committed to reality.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Stephen,

I think that different men have different degrees of strength. Would you agree? What does the varying degrees of strength depend on? The strength of their values? How integrated they are?

Proper values and premises in an integrated man certainly make for strength of character. But given men with the same values and premises, ultimately, on the most fundamental level, it is a matter of volitional effort.

[Nate Smith 0]

For anyone not aware of this other thread, I found Betsy Speicher's comments on inner stregth very helpful.

[Nate Smith 0]

For anyone not aware of this other thread, I found Betsy Speicher's comments on inner stregth very helpful.

[Nate Smith 0]

The more integrated you are and the more that you act on the correct premises, the more natural it becomes to stay in full focus and to keep the full context in mind. But it was strength of character that led to such a natural state, and it is that same strength which underlies its maintenance. A physically strong man remains strong even when not completely exercising his strength. Likewise with strength of character.

I think you are missing the basic role of volition. Volition requires effort, which is why two young children growing up in the same circumstances might characteristically act the opposite of each other. When confronted with the unknown, one child exerts the effort to grasp and understand, while another gives up early in the process. This volitional aspect underlies all values and premises, and good values and premises will not be maintained in the absence of the volitional effort to stay in focus, to keep the full context in mind and to be committed to reality.

Would you agree with the following analysis:

Young children are naturally curious. Their curiosity and desire to think comes with little to no effort and requires very little will to maintain, at least at first. As this process continues, there are multiple reasons why this may require more strength or motivation. Some of these reasons are: negative influences from parents (poor explanations, rules without reasons, little intellectual stimulus), peer pressure (some children value attention from others over understaning reality) and frustration with the increasing difficulty of ideas, just to list a few. The fewer of these types of impediments there are, the more likely the natural process is likely to continue. But more impediments will tend to discourage an active mind. When you referred to (paraphrasing) "strength of character manifesting as the will to remain in full focus and contact with reality", this is to what you refer. A strong, or motivated, individual may not need that motivation under healthy circumstances, but that individual is strong nontheless. But ultimately volition allows one to choose either path.

I take this to be a brief summary of your position, so please correct me if I'm still missing something.

Now I would like to return to the question of the difference between Kira and Leo.

Earlier I questioned whether their different reactions were the result of "inner strength" or mistaken premises on Leo's part (not making the distinction between the metaphysical and man-made, in this case). While it might be the case that Leo chose to stop thinking, I think this was largely the result of his mistaken premise that lead him to choose this. He saw no value in continuing, because he saw the world as malevolent. I'm not sure this point was addressed before this thread took a turn, so I'm bringing it up again.

Stephen, you first interjected with your comments explaining strength in answer to my question about strength, but I am unclear as to whether you were just answering that question, or also asserting a position on Leo.

I have found this thread very helpfull, so thank you to everyone for your comments. I haven't thought about some of these questions before.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Would you agree with the following analysis:

Young children are naturally curious. Their curiosity and desire to think comes with little to no effort and requires very little will to maintain, at least at first.

I disagree.

From as early as the age of two, there are dramatic differences in children in this regard. Some are actively inquisitive, always asking questions, exploring, getting into things, and some just sit passively and avoid effort. There are the "Let's find out, let's make it, let's do it" types like Francisco and the "Don't bother me, don't bother me, don't bother me" types like James Taggart and they usually start to display it long before age 5.

If you don't believe me, ask a Montessori teacher or a mother of more than three children.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I take this to be a brief summary of your position, so please correct me if I'm still missing something.

What you wrote is not my position. Most fundamentally, we seem to have a different sense of the role of volition. You might find Chapter 2 of Peikoff's OPAR more helpful.

Stephen, you first interjected with your comments explaining strength in answer to my question about strength, but I am unclear as to whether you were just answering that question, or also asserting a position on Leo.

I never addressed Leo in these posts.

[PhilO 0]

From as early as the age of two, there are dramatic differences in children in this regard. Some are actively inquisitive, always asking questions, exploring, getting into things, and some just sit passively and avoid effort. There are the "Let's find out, let's make it, let's do it" types like Francisco and the "Don't bother me, don't bother me, don't bother me" types like James Taggart and they usually start to display it long before age 5.

It would be very interesting to me to poll Objectivists to see if they were active-minded even as young kids, notably more so than their age peers. I know I was, and I would bet that statistically, so were most Objectivists. Would you be interested in setting up a board poll along those lines? Offhand I think it would be along the lines of "As a child, would you say you were (1) about average curiosity and mentally active, (2) somewhat above average, (3) far above average, (4) below average." You could most likely frame it better, but that's the general idea.

[jasonlockwood 0]

Speaking for myself, I was VORACIOUSLY curious as a child. It's the main thing that got me in hot water in Sunday School at my Catholic church. I always wanted to know WHY. It didn't appear to me that the other kids wanted to question what I saw then as silly notions the teacher presented. (Of course, the ideas are worse than silly, but in my child's mind, it all SOUNDED silly.)

Time and again in my childhood I was always wanting to find things out. When I started learning foreign languages, I wanted to master them so I could integrate that new knowledge.

I don't consider myself a genius by any means, but I do know (and my parents confirm it) that I was extraordinarily independent from a young age, and never let up as I got older. I think this more than anything has helped me resist all manner of bad habits and ideas over the years, such as pressure from friends to take drugs, or submit my mind to environmentalism or religion.

I must admit I was politically liberal in my late teens and early 20s, but Objectivism helped me sort that out well before turning 30. Again, my independence helped me overcome whatever bad ideas I held as a younger man.

[Guest Michelle F. Cohen]

Eddie is not at the point of understanding the evil by which he is surrounded. So, unlike those in Galt Valley, who have each finally come to understand that there is no alternative but to strike, Eddie cannot give up the world as he sees it in order to go to Galt Valley. In AS, Eddie's physical fate is very uncertain to say the least, though when we see him last, his spirit is still intact.

It is true that Eddie cannot give up his vision of Taggart Transcontinental and the world as it used to be. In his final scene he remains alone on the comet crying: "Don't let it go!" But earlier, it beomes apparent that his spirit is cracked, if not crushed. Here is quote from the last dialogue between Eddie and Dagny toward the end of the chapter "The Egoist":

Eddie: "It's still Taggart Transcontinental. I'll stand by it. Dagny, wherever you go, you'll always be able to build a railroad. I couldn't. I don't even want to make a new start. Not any more. Not after what I've seen. You should. I can't. Let me do what I can."

Dagny: "Eddie! Don't you want - " She stopped, knowing that it was useless. "All right, Eddie. If you wish"

Eddie does not want to make a new start because his spirit was affected by the evil he has seen.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

It would be very interesting to me to poll Objectivists to see if they were active-minded even as young kids, notably more so than their age peers. I know I was, and I would bet that statistically, so were most Objectivists. Would you be interested in setting up a board poll along those lines?

I'll be happy to do it if you want, but members can set up their own polls. Just start a new thread in a forum approriate to the subject, and next to "Poll Options" is "Click here to manage this topic's poll." You can test out using the poll procedure first in the "TESTING, TESTING" forum.

[PhilO 0]

I'll be happy to do it if you want, but members can set up their own polls. Just start a new thread in a forum approriate to the subject, and next to "Poll Options" is "Click here to manage this topic's poll." You can test out using the poll procedure first in the "TESTING, TESTING" forum.

Ah, ok. I thought that creation of them was limited to moderators.