A problem grasping a sentence/concept in Galt's Speech.

[RobC 0]

"You moral cannibals, I know that you've always known what it was that you wanted. But your game is up, because now we know it, too." -from Galt's Speech, Atlas Shrugged, pp 925

In every other piece of writing by Ayn Rand that I have read, her conception of people who follow a non-absolutist creed was that the only absolute is to never name what it is you want or even to think about it (too closely.)

So my questions:

1) Is my understanding right? If not, how not?

2) What, then, is the exact meaning of this sentence?

I have the feeling I am missing something, but no idea what.

[Paul's Here 0]

"You moral cannibals, I know that you've always known what it was that you wanted. But your game is up, because now we know it, too." -from Galt's Speech, Atlas Shrugged, pp 925

In every other piece of writing by Ayn Rand that I have read, her conception of people who follow a non-absolutist creed was that the only absolute is to never name what it is you want or even to think about it (too closely.)

So my questions:

1) Is my understanding right? If not, how not?

2) What, then, is the exact meaning of this sentence?

I have the feeling I am missing something, but no idea what.

I'm not sure how the second paragraph applies to what Galt is talking about. Galt's quote is simply saying that the victim's of altruism now understand the nature of altruism and will no longer serve as sacrifices to those who advocate altruism.

Can you give an example of what your second paragraph would apply to?

[RobC 0]

I'm not sure how the second paragraph applies to what Galt is talking about. Galt's quote is simply saying that the victim's of altruism now understand the nature of altruism and will no longer serve as sacrifices to those who advocate altruism.

Can you give an example of what your second paragraph would apply to?

My question centers around the first sentence of that quote. "...I know that you've always known what it was that you wanted." -GS, AS. (925)

I thought the point of most of her other writings around the ideas of non-objective ethics was that the perpetrators never knew what they wanted, or the methods by which they went about getting it. I'm having trouble "validating" that sentence.

As an example, take Jim Taggart, to keep with the same novel. They were many passages describing how he avoided knowledge of his philosophical/ethical aims. The board of Taggart Transcontinental provided other examples, as did every other second-hander in that novel. To my understanding, that sentence goes against every other characterisation of "moral cannibals" demonstrated in her works. The only three characters I can think of that "know" would be Elsworth Toohey, Fred Kinan, and Lillian Rearden.

Is it clearer now, my misunderstanding?

[alann 0]

"You moral cannibals, I know that you've always known what it was that you wanted. But your game is up, because now we know it, too." -from Galt's Speech, Atlas Shrugged, pp 925

In every other piece of writing by Ayn Rand that I have read, her conception of people who follow a non-absolutist creed was that the only absolute is to never name what it is you want or even to think about it (too closely.)

So my questions:

1) Is my understanding right? If not, how not?

2) What, then, is the exact meaning of this sentence?

I have the feeling I am missing something, but no idea what.

Galt's speech is a summarization, an essentialization of the concrete events in the novel. To understand Galt's statement, consider Hank Rearden's relationship with his family. I was just listening to that first scene (audiobook), in which he comes home from the factory and we see how his family deals with him. They live off him materially, yes, but they also feed off the control that they have over him (that he, without understanding it, gives them). Lillian insists on throwing a party "for him," something he loathes, because it has nothing really to do with him, but he agrees, because she is his wife and he wants to make her happy. But it doesn't. He gives his brother the full amount that he is trying to raise for charity, to make him happy, but, because -- as his brother extracts from him -- he doesn't give a damn about the charity itself, just his brother, it does nothing for the brother. His mother suggests that this largesse suggests a better side to Hank, but barely. All of these things repesent "what it was that [they] wanted," but that Hank didn't understand. Galt is speaking primarily for the Hank Reardens of the world in his speech, not himself, since he understood this much earlier and made it his goal to help his productive equals understand it, too. Hank did, finally, understand that his family didn't think like he did, that they were parasites, that they actually fed off his soul, aiming to reduce it to the sordidness and mediocrity of their own, through constant ridicule, reproach, and undercutting. When he understood that, when he finally realized the full extent of their depravity and his own rightness and innocence, that was when "the game was up" for Lillian and the rest of them.

That's my understanding of the speech: It integrated conceptually the journey we went through with Hank.

[Paul's Here 0]

I'm not sure how the second paragraph applies to what Galt is talking about. Galt's quote is simply saying that the victim's of altruism now understand the nature of altruism and will no longer serve as sacrifices to those who advocate altruism.

Can you give an example of what your second paragraph would apply to?

My question centers around the first sentence of that quote. "...I know that you've always known what it was that you wanted." -GS, AS. (925)

I thought the point of most of her other writings around the ideas of non-objective ethics was that the perpetrators never knew what they wanted, or the methods by which they went about getting it. I'm having trouble "validating" that sentence.

As an example, take Jim Taggart, to keep with the same novel. They were many passages describing how he avoided knowledge of his philosophical/ethical aims. The board of Taggart Transcontinental provided other examples, as did every other second-hander in that novel. To my understanding, that sentence goes against every other characterisation of "moral cannibals" demonstrated in her works. The only three characters I can think of that "know" would be Elsworth Toohey, Fred Kinan, and Lillian Rearden.

Is it clearer now, my misunderstanding?

I think there are two issues. One is emotionalism and the other is evasion. The relativist, non-absolutist type could be classified as individuals who don't know what they want. The individuals who primarily function by evasion, such as Jim Taggart and Dr. Stadler, Floyd Ferris, etc. can be said to know what they want in the sense that they consistently evade identifying the fundamental issue that motivates them. For them, it is not a matter that they have conceptually identified their motivations and "know" it in that sense. They "know" it in the sense that every action they take consists of evading (not avoiding) bringing the issue into conscious focus and awareness. The leaders of altruism know (not conceptually) that they desire the death of their victims, but they can evade that knowledge because there are always more victims to replace the ones that have been sucked dry. Galt (conceptually) knows they know this, and by withdrawing the victims, they can no longer evade their awareness - they can no longer prevent conceptual identification from coming into focus.

[alann 0]

I just wanted to clarify my previous post: The "what they want" that Hank Rearden discovered for himself and that Galt essentializes in his speech, is not the material things that Rearden provided and, even, what they asked for (like the contribution to his brother's charity, or his agreement to attend Lillian's party), but his sacrifice of his own principles, his own happiness, his own values, until he was reduced to their own moral stature. That is what Hank Rearden learns in the course of the novel and what Galt is talking about when he talks about "what they want" and what "game" is up. The fact that they speak in a code -- not asking for what they actually want, but hinting, implying, needling, cajoling the producers of the world like Hank, trying to induce a sense of guilt and moral unworthiness, until they have destroyed them -- is what requires a John Galt to expose the "game" being played. He goes on to name explicitly what Hank Rearden realized... and what he finally withdrew from his family and "friend": The "Sanction of the Victim."

[oldsalt 0]

Perhaps a quote that addresses the same point in a different context would help. When Galt is telling Dagny about the strike (at the first dinner at Mulligan's house), he talks about the motives of "the despoilers":

The despoiling of reason has been the motive of every anti-reason creed on earth. The despoiling of ability has been the purpose of every creed that preached self-sacrifice. The despoilers have always known it." (AS, p. 739)

I think this is the "what they want" that is referenced in the quote from the speech. That is, they want to rule the men of the mind and to loot the products of the mind. That is about as far as such people go in identifying "what they want."

[RobC 0]

Thank you for those replys Paul's Here, oldsalt, and alann.

It is clear to me now that my mistake was on the different levels of "knowledge" held by the parties involved.

Looks like I got some thinking to do.

[Paul's Here 0]

Thank you for those replys Paul's Here, oldsalt, and alann.

It is clear to me now that my mistake was on the different levels of "knowledge" held by the parties involved.

Looks like I got some thinking to do.

For additional discussion on levels of knowledge check this thread out on implicit knowledge.