What happened plot-wise:
We learn about the history between Francisco and Dagny (why, that little
tart!) We learn that Francisco was a man of superlative intelligence, and
that he valued achievement as much or more than Dagny.
We see that at some point in his past, he was suddenly turned around,
and apparently discarded all those values that he used to hold highly.
Dagny witnesses the turning point, but doesn’t understand it.
Here’s the key scene:
‘Without transition or warning, he asked, his voice oddly unstressed,
“Dagny, what would you say if I asked you to leave Taggart Trans-
Continental and let it go to hell, as it will when your brother takes over?”
‘”What would I say if you asked me to consider the idea of committing
suicide?” she answer angrily.
then later…
“I can’t give it up! I can’t” (Francisco)
“What?” she whispered.
“You.”
“Why should–”
“And everything.”
“Why should you give it up?”
“Dagny! Help me to remain. To refuse. Even though
he’s right!”
and later, after he’s finished suffering and he’s saying goodbye
to Dagny:
“Don’t wait for me, Dagny. Next time we meet, you will not
want to see me. I will have a reason for the things I’ll do. But
I can’t tell you the reason and you will be right to damn me.”
The “things” he’s referring to turn out to be abandoning his
business, letting his mines go to hell, becoming a playboy,
and wasting his family fortune. We don’t know his motive,
but we do know that it’s a complete contradiction of his character.
Was this chapter confusing? Or did it just increase your curiosity about the plot?
What happened with respect to Rand’s philosophy:
This was more an “action” chapter than one in which Rand gets into philosophical
discussions, but there are some tidbits here (and in every chapter of the book.)
In a discussion between Jim Taggart and Francisco:
“In his lifetime, every one of my ancestors raised the production of d’Anconia
copper by about ten per cent. I intend to raise it by one hundred”
“What for?” Jim asked
“When I die, I hope to go to heaven — whatever the hell that is — and I want
to be able to afford the price of admission.”
“Virtue is the price of admission,” Jim said haughtily.
“That’s what I mean, James. So I want to be prepared to claim the
greatest virtue of all — that I was a man who made money.”
That exchange shows both Rand’s disrespect of the idea of heaven, and her
linking of virtue to the making of money, a link that you won’t find too often
in religious doctrines.
Later, when Dagny visits him following the nationalization of San Sebastian,
this exchange occurs:
“Your brother James and his friends knew nothing about the copper-mining
industry. They knew nothing about making money. They did not think it was
necessary to learn. They considered knowledge superfluous and judgment
inessential.”
So here Rand links knowledge and judgment to wealth, and lack of knowledge
but relying on others blindly, to getting fleeced (like Jim did in the San Sebastian
stock.)
That’s a key message throughout the book, though it seems odd here to have
Francisco as the messenger.
Okay, your turn. Share your thoughts about the story development and the
philosophical points with the group!
Next chapter: I-VI The Non-Commercial
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Barry Weinman 08.24.10 at 11:28 am
Excellent analysis of this chapter. Sort of wish our current clowns in charge of our government had the brains to understand this chapter but thats not going to happen.
Bruce.Hayek 08.24.10 at 1:55 pm
Thanks Barry. I wasn’t actually trying to analyze,
more to just give a recap of things that might be
interesting to comment on, but I guess even in doing
that I reveal my thinking
Here are a couple of observations that I made
personally:
Francisco comments to Dagny don’t sound as if
he doesn’t care any longer about business. He keeps
saying things like “have you checked your premises”
and “given what you know, you might be right”. Would
he really have put that much thought into these things
if he was so carefree and unconcerned with money or
the perception of his behavior?
As far as the philosophical points, the idea of money-making
as a virtue is one that resonates really strongly for me. I think
about how businessman are almost always portrayed by
hollywood (as evil money-lovers who will do anything for a
profit), or by the media, and there seems to be a lack of
recognition that, for the most part, you don’t make money
without providing some value. There are obviously exceptions,
but I don’t understand why the exceptions are what people tend
to focus on. My personal prejudice is that the Kenneth Lay’s of
the world are in the minority, but they are all you hear about, while
the quiet and less flamboyant and abusive CEOs are by and large
ignored, despite being more important.
I don’t go as far as Rand in thinking that dedicating everything to
your business is the height of virtue, but I do believe that having
a strong drive to provide a value and recieve a value in return (money)
is by and large a good thing and what lifts the quality of life for
civilization as a whole.
Walter R. Roth 08.25.10 at 12:58 am
I’ve been told there are people that create energy and those that consume energy in most any type of venture. Unfortunately, I think many of the people running the government are the types that take energy out of a system. Those that create it often times seek other means to drive meaningful change in the world.
I find it interesting to ponder, that at the very same moment we are reading this book and discussing its philosophical points on this blog, there are masses of people, many of them students in the most formative time of their intellectual careers, being armed with counter measures to honoring the creation of value. An anthem of sorts that sounds strong if enough people are saying it, and enough laws enforcing it. Jim displays this mindless self-righteous aggression best:
— Book Quote —-
Jim was approaching his senior year in a college in New York. His studies had given him a manner of odd, quavering belligerence, as if he had found a new weapon. He addressed Francisco once, without provocation, stopping him in the middle of the lawn to say in a tone of aggressive self-righteousness:
“I think that now that you’ve reached college age, you ought to learn something about ideals. It’s time to forget your selfish greed and give some thought to your social responsibilities, because I think that all those millions you’re going to inherit are not for your personal pleasure, they are a trust for the benefit of the underprivileged and the poor, because I think that the person who doesn’t realize this is the most depraved type of human being.”
Francisco answered courteously, “It is not advisable, James, to venture unsolicited opinions. You should spare yourself the embarrassing discovery of their exact value to your listener.”
— Book Quote —
T. Clark 08.26.10 at 11:31 pm
It’s Rand’s atheism coming through and her disdain of the falsely shared belief of heaven (false because it can’t be proven via logic/scientific method). But if Rand could have a heaven, it would only be admissible of people who pursue making money. I can’t spoil the story for those who might not have read the book, but later on, Dagny will find heaven on earth.
When I first read the book, I was very annoyed by Francisco’s constant reminder about “checking your premises” but after reading and, especially, watching the interviews on youtube, of Rand, I understand more of what Francisco was talking about.
Stella 09.17.10 at 10:30 am
For everyone who is interested: a lecture at Stanford about Ayn Rand’s Morality of Selfishness on Tuesday, September 28. For more information see the event calender of Stanford.