Arakasi Takeda wrote:
I disagree that the issue of evasion is 'very general'; the speech calls out Stadler specifically:
Are you arguing like this because you aren't paying attention, or are you doing it subconsciously et cetera? Everything in that passage can be inserted where you have inserted "evasion". That passage takes up many things. It mention evasion at the beginning, but there are many forms of evasion. Stadlers specific error (or evasion) is the practical-theoretical dichotomy, which the majority of that passage is spent on. [/quote]
Let's bring this discussion of Stadler to a close with a question directly from me to you - Why are we still arguing?
Everything in that passage can be inserted where you have inserted "evasion".
The above is a direct quote
from you. Let me use it as a logical premise for
my arguement.
1) Everything in that passage can be inserted where you have inserted 'evasion'
2) That passage is directed at Stadler specifically.
3) Stadler is a symbol of 'evasion' in the book.
It's not an exact syllogism, but I think it is simple enough to follow. All I have been saying, from the beginning, is that Stadler is a symbol of evasion, in the book. You started out arguing that he was not - that, instead, he was a symbol of the tyranny of force over reason. Between then and now, I have presented a few examples of why your particular interpretation might be questionable, but I did not disagree with you ultimately. I said so specifically, in reference the passage about his endorsing project Xylophone. You have continued to argue with me, despite my admitting to your perfectly logical conclusion, and the end result of your arguing is the passage I quoted in full above - that Stadler is guilty of evasion. You now seem to be trying to bat at me about his specific type of evasion, when I only presented the general case.
As far as I can tell, you are just arguing with me to argue with me. We have both come to certain conclusions about Stadler's representation in the book. In both cases, I think we have argued logically _and_ consistently. If there is no logical _inconsistency_ between our two positions, why are we arguing? I am not arguing a case in opposition to you. Mine would just be a general case of yours. This whole discussion was in relation to a comment to Tolthar I made as to why I am sometimes taken with _sympathy_ towards the character's state - I understand what it means to be frustrated at irrationality.
I know why I am still responding to this - because I feel the need to answer questions you pose to me, and defend myself from 'low blow' comments like the one you made at the beginning -
Are you arguing like this because you aren't paying attention, or are you doing it subconsciously et cetera?
What is your motive? Why are you arguing?
How conscious a choice it is is inconsequential
http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/freewill.html
When man unfocuses his mind, he may be said to be conscious in a subhuman sense of the word, since he experiences sensations and perceptions. But in the sense of the word applicable to man—in the sense of a consciousness which is aware of reality and able to deal with it, a consciousness able to direct the actions and provide for the survival of a human being—an unfocused mind is not conscious.
I believe 'how conscious a choice' is not only
not inconsequential, but is, in fact, the most important part of the context here. I quote the free will section of the lexicon to try to explain why.
An unfocused (unconscious) mind cannot be said to possess free will. How conscious a mind is determines its ability to make choices. Now, this appears slightly circular, since reason is a volitional choice - a person could chose not to be reasoned, and, instead, be unconscious, in which case they are not free to make choices - which, I assume, means they can't then chose to be reasonable?
But ignoring that bit of a logic puzzle - how conscious Stadler 'is' is important to understanding his reactions over time. One assumes, in the past, that Stadler consciously chose to practice reason in
both his theory and personal life. He could never have been a respected mentor of Galt, if this were not the case. Something happened that caused him to change his mind. I don't think he deliberately chose to segregate his reason into theory and not personal, but, instead, simply 'unfocused his mind', in regards to his personal life. He became unconscious in personal situations, while trying to remain 'conscious' in theory work.
You correctly point out (and Galt spends that portion of the speech) stating that such a situation is not sustainable. That the segregation cannot exist, because it is a logical contradiction. But I do not think Stadler is really _aware_ of the contradiction, in any meaningful sense. He has no capacity to 'step outside himself' and review his own situation coherently. He cannot say to himself 'I am acting in a contradictory manner'. How volitional is his evasion, at this late point in the story? IMHO, you cannot argue he still has a choice, if his consciousness has completely failed (in the way Rand addresses in regards to man, in the quote above).
I think there is a fundamental distinction to be made between a person who would be aware of their contradiction, and one who is not. Awareness implies the ability to chose, to 'check the premises', and correct the contradiction. Stadler seems to have lost the ability to do so, and, thus, lost the choice. His actions have become involuntary.
At least, that's my take on the subject. Whether or not I have come to the proper conclusion, in Rand's opinion, is not really something I can ask her. You apparently have come to the conclusion that I am wrong. So be it.
AT
