16

The Speech

Posted by $ KSilver3 10 years ago to Philosophy
103 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Thought provoking question (hopefully)- Would John Galt's speech have any impact if given in modern times? I am doing my yearly reading of AS, and that question kept percolating in my mind. Not whether it is right of wrong, good or evil, but would it have any impact? I'm questioning this from two different angles. First, in today's partisan team sport of politics and economics, would he simply be labeled as a member of one team, and ignored by the others? Second, and sadder, would the vast majority of humans today have the attention span to listen to it in its entirety? In our modern 30 second sound bite world, would anyone actually stay tuned in long enough to gain from it, or simply tune out and wait for someone to interpret it for them? Of course, even in the book, most listeners missed the point, and simply wanted to abdicate their decision making to Galt instead of their current leaders, but it did have an impact. I am pessimistic that it would have any impact today. Thoughts?

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 4.
  • Posted by Rex_Little 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Of course they are, and I agreed with them before I ever read the speech. What's fictional is the notion that those ideas, presented in a speech which runs longer than a full-length motion picture, would have any effect on the vast majority of people other than curing their insomnia.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ TomB666 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are saying? Man has the ability to reason, but that does not mean he does so. Do you mean man has the ability to be a rational animal?

    When someone rationalizes rather then reasons, is he not then acting as a rationalizing animal? I think in these cases it is fair to call him a rationalizing animal because that is what he is doing.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I've been called far worse than a cynic before :)

    Here is the usage I was speaking of from dictionary.com

    verb (used without object), rationalized, rationalizing.
    7.
    to invent plausible explanations for acts, opinions, etc., that are actually based on other causes:
    He tried to prove that he was not at fault, but he was obviously rationalizing.

    In the land of "I feel" this is a go to move
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    right, but man is a rational animal, not a rationalizing animal. This error is made by cynics and used to undermine reason and philosophy. Ultimately, it is an anti-conceptual argument - often made by the logical positivists.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    The speech is not just relevant to a constitution, in fact it has little relevance to a constitution. The speech is important because freedom cannot be built on any foundation, it has to be built on reason, A is A, rational selfishness, etc.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by PURB 10 years ago
    Thought-provoking questions. With "diversity" and "multiculturalism" saturating academia today, including lesson plans, the selection of textbooks, and the requirements students MUST fulfill, some of today's audiences would wonder to which "group" Galt belongs. Does he represent only privileged white males? Is he gay or a tranny? What's his ethnic background?
    Galt's Euro-American, ego-testicle worldview, politicians and PhD's would insist, is not "inclusive" of follicularly challenged, melanin impoverished, motivationally deficient Chicana lesbian feminists, who are differently logical. Many, I suspect, would find Galt's speech charm free.
    Sad but true.
    But the audience in Atlas is starving; the strikers aren't.
    Would hungry people listen for 3 hours and make connections? I believe many would.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 10 years ago
    ABSOLUTELY NONE. The basic intelligence level of the country has deteriorated to the point of almost no comprehension. and the fact that more uneducated people are coming into the country makes it even worse.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by jtrikakis 10 years ago
    People today don't think. That is done by those with an agenda. The groups who make the most noise such climate change and LGBT have been successful because of their noise. Nobody suddenly "gets it" they need to told over and over gain.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 10 years ago
    I have to admit, even though I am a college grad in engineering, I found John Galts speech not very relevant to my own life experiences. I had to plow through it. Perhaps its is the Netflix effect where we learn by watching documentaries. I'm sure the speech is philosophically correct, and someone writing a constitution should study completely. But for the average citizen its a bit wordy and outside of their level of living.
    In today's world, we have a real life example of socialism- Venezuela. We need a documentary outlining how it got to where its at, and then a science fiction part where a rational philosophy takes over- along with how it works in practice. Its a LONG study lesson for sure, but it has to be related to where people ARE today.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rex_Little 10 years ago
    Galt's speech had an impact in AS for the same reason his motor was able to run on static electricity from the air: because AS is fictional.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    The problem comes in with how much of the time ignore is the option chosen when it comes to reason.

    Lets face it, when people don't agree what are the first words out of their mouths?

    "I feel" or "I think"

    Maybe it is because I live in New England, but around her "I feel" is the norm, not "I think"

    An initial response encouraged daily by the media, public schools, social media, etc.

    This is one of the few places I have found where "I think" is more common than "I feel"

    If we could have signature lines, mine would be....

    Liberalism - the triumph of emotion over reason.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years ago
    The simple answer is no, but not because of content, but because the speech in its current format is simply too long - especially for today's bullet-point- or sound-bite-obsessed population.

    In the book, Galt's speech goes on for about 40 pages. Having given dozens of speeches and listened to thousands, I can tell you that one page of written text takes 1-2 minutes to deliver even for an experienced orator. The math is pretty simple. Even reading Galt's speech out loud would take ~45 minutes in it's present iteration. That's the length of an entire TV show - without commercials - and without any action shots, sex scenes, or plot development. Even with a captive audience as Galt has in the book, he's going to lose a large portion of them after ten minutes. The movie adaptation similarly recognized this and cut the speech down to about five minutes and did a pretty good job.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I think this is a mistake. Reason is a volitional faculty, therefore each person is able to decide whether to be rational or not. Most people use reason in some areas and ignore it in others..
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years ago
    I think Galt has given that speech - it is in the book. So I think you have your answer. It took Locke's ideas a number of years to be accepted and moderately widespread. Objectivism shot itself in the foot with the whole idea of closed objectivism.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 10 years ago
    Spend your day asking all you come in contact with one simple question. What is the name of the Vice President of the United States today? I would be very surprised if 75% of those you ask will know the answer and this my friends is why JGs speech would mostly fall on deaf ears.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Itheliving 10 years ago
    I could not even read all the posts here that were longer than three lines. My FB newsfeed keeps beeping and I am watching a movie and a sporting using the split screen feature at the same time. Posting this was very distracting. A 500 page speech with big words. I don't think so.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by kevinw 10 years ago
    Hello KSilver3,
    This is an awesome question, I love it. And it sucks. Because I know that years ago, had this speech been broadcast I wouldn't have made it through it. It would not have helped me. It was only in the context of the book that my interest was drawn in enough to see the importance of it. A shortened version? I doubt even that. Years of brainwashing, then years of evasion, then years of cynicism coupled with evasion and wishing it would all just go away. Can you break through all that with a speech on a radio? Maybe a mentor. Maybe someone who could see my struggles and... shit
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Mamaemma 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Excellent point, Snoogoo. I remember that feeling of hey, I already got that. But I knew it was important, so I was determined to read it all-or listen to it all. :)
    I think in the movie they did a great job of hitting the high points.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Snoogoo 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree with you Mama, I did read the whole thing but I kept looking ahead thinking.. "where does this end!" But I think I felt that way because it was redundant, by the time you get to that part, if you "get" the book, you don't need to hear the same ideas repeated because you have already connected all of the dots in your head. I know AR did this for emphasis just to make everything clear, kind of like.. just in case you missed any piece of that, here it is explained in detail. This may be a good idea for a writing contest though. See who can write the best Galt speech in a condensed, concise format. Whoever can get all the points across with the fewest words and the best writing wins. Perhaps this has already been done, but a worthy endeavor to repeat.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 12
    Posted by Technocracy 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Or as Robert Heinlein put it.....

    Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal.


    The difference between rational and rationalizing explains many of our ills today.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by richrobinson 10 years ago
    Excellent post KSilver. Given the fact that most State of the Union speeches are written on about an eighth grade level I am guessing a speech of that depth would be tuned out. Could someone update and simplify it to get the same point across? I think they could. A lot of people listen to Obama and he ends up saying nothing. A speech with substance would be a welcome change.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo