# What would Nietzsche say to Ayn Rand? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 13, 2004, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-nietzsche-say-to-ayn-rand/245002 "2004-05-13T19:38:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2004, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-nietzsche-say-to-ayn-rand/245002/41 "2004-05-18T05:29:15Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > Brings up another point - a German and a Russian Jew? Man. That doesn’t bode well. Perhaps not if we were talking about some other German, but as I said, Nietzsche was no anti-Semite. He was, however, pretty anti-_German_, and spent as much of his time in Italy as possible. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2004, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-nietzsche-say-to-ayn-rand/245002/42 "2004-05-18T16:11:44Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > Perhaps not if we were talking about some other German, but as I said, Nietzsche was no anti-Semite. He was, however, pretty anti-_German_, and spent as much of his time in Italy as possible. Very true. It is a crying shame that a great thinker who highly extolled the Judaic values from Old Testament and even advocated more Jews to settle in Germany while extraditing the nationalists out of Germany (somewhere in ‘Beyond Good and Evil’), has a reputation of Anti-Semite among the un-informed masses. The only time FN said anything bad about any Jews was when he would rage against Christianity, which was his major gripe. The Jews he’d target would be the early Christian sect and thus not even real Jews, properly speaking. FN never said a single bad word against traditional, orthodox Jews. FN was clearly not a lover of German race, always proudly pointing out that his ancestry is not German but from Polish (Slavic) aristocracy. Ayn Rand was not any thinker or philosopher, but an example of that despicable XX-century brood of _ideologues_. No conversation would be possible there. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2004, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-nietzsche-say-to-ayn-rand/245002/43 "2004-05-18T16:25:31Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > Ayn Rand was not any thinker or philosopher, but an example of that despicable XX-century brood of _ideologues_. No conversation would be possible there. Just out of curiosity, how do you you define those three terms? Especially as it pertains to the difference. If an ideologue advocates some ideology, doesn’t she have to develop one first? In which case isn’t she a philosopher? Or do you have some other criteria for philosopher. ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2004, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-nietzsche-say-to-ayn-rand/245002/44 "2004-05-18T16:46:09Z")
A bit off-topic, but on reading the thread title I was reminded of the (probably apochryphal) story of the diminutive Harlan Ellison meeting a statuesque lady at a con, and asking her “What would you say to a little fuck?”. The lady looked scornfully down at Harlan and said “I’d say, ‘Hello, little fuck’.” A bit off-topic? Hell, nowhere near the topic… ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2004, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-nietzsche-say-to-ayn-rand/245002/45 "2004-05-18T16:47:52Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > Very true. It is a crying shame that a great thinker who highly extolled the Judaic values from Old Testament and even advocated more Jews to settle in Germany while extraditing the nationalists out of Germany (somewhere in ‘Beyond Good and Evil’), has a reputation of Anti-Semite among the un-informed masses. It is a shame, and a goodly portion of my thesis was devoted to this very topic, but I wouldn’t be too hard on those who are confused on the issue. A lot of people (not least of all the Big H himself) put a lot of effort into portraying Nietzsche as an anti-Semite, German nationalist, and proto-Nazi. So it’s no surprise that he has an undeserved reputation as such. Still, it is sadly ironic…I doubt he had many peers who were more _anti_ anti-Semitic. > [@](#): > > - > > Ayn Rand was not any thinker or philosopher, but an example of that despicable XX-century brood of _ideologues_. No conversation would be possible there. \*I’m inclined to agree, although I may merely be projecting my prejudice against Rand onto Nietzsche when I say that I don’t think he’d have wanted to sit down for a long intellectual discussion with her. But given what I know of his beliefs and character, neither her sex nor her ethnic background would have been a barrier to such a discussion. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2004, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-nietzsche-say-to-ayn-rand/245002/46 "2004-05-18T17:02:54Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > …how do you you define those three terms? Especially as it pertains to the difference. If an ideologue advocates some ideology, doesn’t she have to develop one first? In which case isn’t she a philosopher? Or do you have some other criteria for philosopher. I don’t really distinguish between thinker or philosopher. ‘Love of wisdom’ is a noble definition. The only wisdom can be obtained in a spirit of free inquiry: constantly questioning own assumptions and never dictating ideas to others. Dictating ideas is what _ideologues_ do. To develop an ideology free thought is not desired. Sooner or later an ideologue stops taking input from life and starts telling others how life must be and how they must live. I’d never equate ideologue with a true thinker or philosopher. AR just managed to be convincing in her political and social essays and really exposed herself as a closed mind ideologue in her attempts at fiction, populated not with a single living human soul but only with progammed robots, spouting endlessly how “free” everyone should be. One of the most telling fiascos was her attempt to create a character of a priest in ‘Atlas Shrugged’. She struggled with it and failed. So she announced to her faithful that there can be no such thing as a “true” priest: it’s all an aberration, a sham, like all religion. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2004, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-nietzsche-say-to-ayn-rand/245002/47 "2004-05-18T17:30:42Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > I don’t really distinguish between thinker or philosopher. ‘Love of wisdom’ is a noble definition. The only wisdom can be obtained in a spirit of free inquiry: constantly questioning own assumptions and never dictating ideas to others. I can agree with this. As long as you are not taking it too far. The old advice about having an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out comes to mind. > [@](#): > > Dictating ideas is what _ideologues_ do. Ok, but what exactly do you mean by dictating? Are you including the concept that being a proponent of your ideas over those of other constitutes dictating? Or is some form of force necessary. It seems to me that Nietzsche was quite opinionated about his own ideas. How exactly does this _not_ constitute being an ideologue? > [@](#): > > One of the most telling fiascos was her attempt to create a character of a priest in ‘Atlas Shrugged’. She struggled with it and failed. So she announced to her faithful that there can be no such thing as a “true” priest: it’s all an aberration, a sham, like all religion. I had not heard this story either. Can you tell me where you heard it? ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2004, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-nietzsche-say-to-ayn-rand/245002/48 "2004-05-18T18:44:46Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > It seems to me that Nietzsche was quite opinionated about his own ideas. How exactly does this _not_ constitute being an ideologue? Yes, in particular his animosity to Christianity comes to mind. Yet you can find many of his thoughts on positive influence of Church in European intellectual development. That’s what I call an open mind, the capacity to see many sides of the issue. I read FN and I’m stimulated to think, I feel the greatest mental excitement. I read AR and it’s either to swallow the whole thing or to reject it completely; it’s so narrow minded and doesn’t stimulate any desire to think or to explore, only to repeat the same thing again and again. Priest character story I read in some writings of AR followers, Peikoff most likely, maybe it was a preface to “Atlas”, that’s all I remember. It was a list of human types she wanted to base the novel on: an industrialist (good but lacking guidance), an intellectual (very bad), a free spirit (very good), a bitch (goddess, really), a priest (which cannot be)… ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-nietzsche-say-to-ayn-rand/245002/49 "2004-05-19T02:42:54Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > Very true. It is a crying shame that a great thinker who highly extolled the Judaic values from Old Testament and even advocated more Jews to settle in Germany while extraditing the nationalists out of Germany (somewhere in ‘Beyond Good and Evil’), has a reputation of Anti-Semite among the un-informed masses. I’ve read, can’t find a cite, that later generations misinterpreted Nietzsche in part because after his death, his sister revised one of his unpublished books before releasing it, changing it to suit her own prejudices. But, for whatever reason, it is certain that Nietzsche’s will-to-power philosophy and conception of the “superman” did have some intellectual influence, direct or indirect, on 20th-Century European fascists – who might not have really understood what Nietzsche was talking about. Furthermore, Nietzsche is usually classified as belonging to the Romantic intellectual tradition that began with Rousseau – that tradition that, as Bertrand Russell described it, substituted esthetic for practical considerations in philosophical judgments, and placed highest value on things that were exciting, emotional, bizarre, or remote – e.g., Romantics preferred majestic mountainscapes or turbulent waterfalls to dull, productive fields and pastures. In Nietzsche’s case, this meant that he despised “vulgarity” – the ways of the common folk; he despised Christianity as a religion made for slaves; and he admired “heroes” – that is, courageous, arrogant, aristocratic bullies, like Achilles. And it’s not a far stretch from that attitude to Hitler’s and Himmler’s, even if Nietzsche himself would have been utterly astonished by them. And if you hate Christianity, it’s really easy, even logical to a degree, to blame the Jews for it. I sometimes do, when I’m in a bad mood. Blame them for Islam, too. Did Abraham have any idea what he was starting? ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-nietzsche-say-to-ayn-rand/245002/50 "2004-05-19T02:56:47Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I’ve read, can’t find a cite, that later generations misinterpreted Nietzsche in part because after his death, his sister revised one of his unpublished books before releasing it, changing it to suit her own prejudices. She did worse than that. Elisabeth (who really was an anti-Semite and proto-Nazi) took control of Nietzsche’s body of work while he was alive but incapacitated and “edited” it to better conform to her own opinions. Luckily the original versions survived, but it was many years before scholars sorted out the mess. Elisabeth is also the one who invited Hitler to swing by the Nietzsche Archiv for the famous photo-op with a bust of her by-then dead and surely rolling-in-his-grave brother. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-nietzsche-say-to-ayn-rand/245002/51 "2004-05-19T05:44:09Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > …it’s not a far stretch from that attitude to Hitler’s and Himmler’s, even if Nietzsche himself would have been utterly astonished by them. All I can say is one only has to read a little FN to understand that Nazi connection is practically unthinkable. Of course, when people form their judgement based strictly on catchphrases like “will-to-power”, “superman”, “blond beast” and so on… well, he did pen those phrases, but he also said a whole lot more besides. And no, not everything he said was rational; he did lose his mind eventually… ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-nietzsche-say-to-ayn-rand/245002/52 "2004-05-19T05:53:35Z")
I’m curious how you would characterize his “will to power” concept. As it pertains to individual humans, that is. The Wikipedia article seemed to indicate that he thought that the seeking of power over others was identical to the seeking of success for oneself. Did they (or I) get it wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-nietzsche-say-to-ayn-rand/245002/53 "2004-05-19T08:23:09Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > I’m curious how you would characterize his “will to power” concept. As it pertains to individual humans, that is. The Wikipedia article seemed to indicate that he thought that the seeking of power over others was identical to the seeking of success for oneself. Did they (or I) get it wrong? I just read the article ([this one](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche#The_Will_to_Power), right?), and I don’t think that’s what they meant. I’m sure it’s not what Nietzsche meant. He encouraged seeking power over _oneself_, and striving to make your life and character like a great work of art. To answer the question you posed to **New Iskander** I would characterize the “Will to Power” as it pertains to indvidual humans as being the force that causes them to act to bring about the things that they desire. This could be anything from “I’m hungry, I want some food, so I will see what’s in the fridge” to “There are many things in this world that I don’t understand, I want to understand them better, so I will attempt to educate myself and improve my mind and especially read every _Straight Dope_ column ever published.” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-nietzsche-say-to-ayn-rand/245002/54 "2004-05-19T14:47:28Z")
Let me pose this question: In Nietzsche’s system, is it practically possible, given sufficient Will, for **everybody** to become a Superman? Or is this a path open only to an elite few, because they depend necessarily on a non-elite mass to minister to their needs (and also to point up the Supermen’s greatness by providing contrast)? Related question: In Ayn Rand’s system, is it possible for **everybody** to become a Rational Man? ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-nietzsche-say-to-ayn-rand/245002/55 "2004-05-19T15:30:19Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Let me pose this question: In Nietzsche’s system, is it practically possible, given sufficient Will, for **everybody** to become a Superman? Some have interpreted _Thus Spake Zarathustra_ as meaning that a race of Übermenschen is destined to come about as the result of human evolution, but it seems clear enough (insofar as anything in in Nietzsche is clear) that Nietzsche believed individuals could only become Übermensch through their own self-effort. I don’t know if this is practically possible for everyone or not, and Nietzsche was not clear as to whether he believed it was or ever would be. I think he hoped that it was, though. > [@](#): > > - > > Or is this a path open only to an elite few, because they depend necessarily on a non-elite mass to minister to their needs (and also to point up the Supermen’s greatness by providing contrast)? \*I think you’ve misunderstood what an Übermensch is meant to be, because this question doesn’t even make sense. An Übermensch is, by definition, independent and self-reliant. It’s very, very important not to confuse the Übermensch with what Nietzsche called the “nobles” (members of the “master races”). The latter belonged to the _past_. Nietzsche considered the beliefs, attitudes, and behavior of the “master races” preferable to those of the “slave races”, but never advocated regressing to a time before the triumph of “slave morality”. The Übermensch is the man of the _future_, not a throwback. The “masters” might have needed the “slaves”, but the Übermensch can take care of himself and certainly doesn’t need to hang around with inferior people just to boost his ego. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-nietzsche-say-to-ayn-rand/245002/56 "2004-05-19T15:45:57Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > I’m curious how you would characterize his “will to power” concept. As it pertains to individual humans, that is. I’m afraid I don’t know enough about the whole body of FN work to answer that. Maybe **Lamia** , **BG** or someone else can do it better. In relation to XX-century fascistic movement, they were using heavily on XIX century terminology and made it sound evil for us by association. Before that people didn’t consider it evil at all. Jack London was forever writing about something similar to “will to power”. The best I can understand it was a common term to describe commendable things, such as striving and persevering, and, yes, coming up on top, with strong Darwinian undertones. Nazis made it sound particularly evil, along with many other things they claimed for themselves. For example, ‘Sieg Heil’ salute; I’ve seen photos of early XX century US schoolchildren reciting Pledge of Allegiance while making the same salute; it was not considered evil then, but just try to do it now. **BrainGlutton** , I think FN clearly envisioned the split of human race into mere men and Supermen, with latter being far less numerous and absolutely high order of beings. I think it was a speculation strongly influenced by Evolution theory. I don’t notice exploitation and abuse factor, simply the future emergence and separation of a new species. I usually start losing track when he gets going about it at length. I think AR theories are egalitarian, with possibility of becoming Rational theoretically open to all. However, her fiction heroes are clearly intended to be seen as special and worshipped by simple people. ---
**Author:** ![Enola\_Straight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dec6dc/32.png) [@Enola\_Straight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enola_Straight)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-nietzsche-say-to-ayn-rand/245002/57 "2004-05-19T18:49:50Z")
Essentially, the main difference in the way man becomes “improved” is the way “improvement” is disseminated? In other words: FN=elitism…only the fortunate few are capable of such a level whereas AR=populism…advancement for the masses ? ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-nietzsche-say-to-ayn-rand/245002/58 "2004-05-19T19:17:34Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > I think AR theories are egalitarian, with possibility of becoming Rational theoretically open to all. However, her fiction heroes are clearly intended to be seen as special and worshipped by simple people. But the point is that they are to be admired for the qualities which allowed them to achieve certain things. Worshipped is the wrong word. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Related question: In Ayn Rand’s system, is it possible for everybody to become a Rational Man? Certainly. Being a Rational man is not a state. It does not require passing a test or achieving a particular level of knowledge. Living as a rational man means simply living rationally as in > [@](#): > > The virtue of _Rationality_ means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one’s only source of knowledge, one’s only judge of values and one’s only guide to action. It means one’s total commitment to a state of full conscious awareness, to the maintenance of a full mental focus in all issues, in all choices, in all of one’s waking hours. It means a commitment to the fullest perception of reality within one’;s power and to the constant, active expansion of one’s perception, _i.e.,_ of one’s knowledge. It means a commitment to the reality of one’s own existence, _i.e.,_ to the principle that all of one’s goals, values and actions take place in reality and, therefore, that one must never place any value or consideration whatsoever above one’s perception of reality. It means a commitment to the principle that all of one’s convictions, values, goals, desires and actions must be based on, derived from, chosen and validated by a process of thought – as precise and scrupulous a process of thought, directed by as ruthlessly strict an application of logic, **as one’s fullest capacity permits.** It means one’s acceptance of the responsibility of forming one’s own judgements and of living by the work of one’s own mind (which is the virtue of Independence). It means that one must never sacrifice one’s convictions to the opinions or wishes of others (which is the virtue of Integrity) – that one must never attempt to fake reality in any manner (which is the virtue of Honesty) – that one must never seek or grant the unearned and undeserved, neither in matter not in spirit (which is the virtue of Justice). It means that one must never desire effects without causes, and that one must never enact a cause without assuming full responsibility for its effects – that one must never act like a zombie, _i.e._, without knowing one’s own purposes and motives – that one must never make any decisions, form any convictions or seek any values out of context, _i.e._, apart from or against the total, integrated sum of one’s knowledge – and, above all, that one must never seek to get away with contradictions. It means the rejection of any form of _mysticism, i.e.,_ any claim to some nonsensory, nonrational, nondefinable, supernatural source of knowledge. It means a commitment to reason, not in sporadic fits or on selected issues or in special emergencies, but as a permanent way of life. Her speech _Objectivist Ethics_ published in _The Virtue of Selfishness_. Bolding mine. > [@Enola Straight](#): > > Essentially, the main difference in the way man becomes “improved” is the way “improvement” is disseminated? No. There is a qualitative difference in what the two writers meant by improvement. I’m not sure yet that I understand the idea of “Will to Power”, but it seems qualitatively different from Rationality as Rand defined it. > [@](#): > > FN=elitism…only the fortunate few are capable of such a level Also, judging from **Lamia** ’s post below this is not the case. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-nietzsche-say-to-ayn-rand/245002/59 "2004-05-19T19:53:32Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > But the point is that they are to be admired for the qualities which allowed them to achieve certain things. Worshipped is the wrong word. I disagree. There is a brazen passage in “Atlas” where Dagney is compared to a Greek goddess, standing high on a train above admiring mass of railroad workers. There is another one when mere physical presence of Rearden makes jail guards unable to function. There are many more when the superiority of main heroes is recognized on sight by complete strangers. Might be just poor writing, of course… Here’s reference to the [priest](http://www.dailyobjectivist.com/Extro/EvolutionofRand.asp), btw. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-nietzsche-say-to-ayn-rand/245002/60 "2004-05-19T21:03:03Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > I disagree. There is a brazen passage in “Atlas” where Dagney is compared to a Greek goddess, standing high on a train above admiring mass of railroad workers. There is another one when mere physical presence of Rearden makes jail guards unable to function. There are many more when the superiority of main heroes is recognized on sight by complete strangers. Might be just poor writing, of course… Or it could simply be a literary device. I’m not sure about Rearden making guards inactive, I don’t remember that scene clearly. But if I remember the scene involving Dagney is one where she just opened the new train line (or something like that). The reference to greek goddesses seemed more a visual representation of the way that producers are the movers of the world. The admiration that the workers felt for Dagney was not simply one of her physical form. It was more for her achievment. I don’t remember the details of that scene either, but I think I remember the context of it. The scene I do remember had to do with some odd mention of the astonishment felt by people that Dagny and Rearden passed due to his confident driving style or something like that. Darn, now I’m going to have to read Atlas Shrugged again. 😉 > [@](#): > > Here’s reference to the [priest](http://www.dailyobjectivist.com/Extro/EvolutionofRand.asp), btw. Thanks for that reference. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-nietzsche-say-to-ayn-rand/245002.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-nietzsche-say-to-ayn-rand/245002.md?page=4)