Susan’s Comments (group member since Jan 24, 2013)

Susan’s comments from the Should have read classics group.

Dustin wrote: "Hey, everyone!

I good friend of mine recently sent me the link to the Mike Wallace interview. It's really quite eye-opening, to say the least. Since we're discussing the book, I thought I'd share..."

Fantastic interview. I saw this for the first time several years ago.

Dustin, I think you accurately described many of the "morons", but I don't think greed is their entire motive, at least not consciously. A lot of their actions are justified by altruistic motives. They claim, and I think often truly believe, they are doing what they do for the greater good. I think this theme ties into the empathy question.
Gilles made a comment earlier that the subtext of this book is that it's ok to not care about the suffering of others. One's interpretation of what it means to care for fellow man is made very clear by which characters you identify with. Either you think that providing the "less fortunate" with unearned handouts is the best way to show you care, or you think that ensuring the opportunity to work and support oneself through a healthy economy is.

I suppose it would be obnoxiously obvious to say, give a man a fish...

Hey guys, new to the group. I read this a long time ago, but it might be time to revisit.

It was the lack of empathy comment that inspired me to join. This is a tricky thing because it would go against the entire principle of the book for Dagny or Reardon to empathize with people who epitomize everything they're fighting. Why would they feel for people who expect to always be pulled up by others coat tails? In their minds, that doesn't truly help anyone involved. As I recall though Dagny at least does express great empathy in at least one big scene. So an not to spoil it for anyone not there yet, I'll just say the man on the train who worked for the Starnes family.

I see them both of the mentality that they'll help those who are first willing to help themselves.