Contradictions Regarding Reality, Society,

and Human Nature in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged

[Francisco d’Anconia and his teacher, Hugh Akston, advise more than once: “Check your premises,”

because contradictions do not exist. Identify at least two major apparent contradictions that the

heroes of Atlas Shrugged encounter, and explain, with reference to the novel, what premises they

need to check and correct in order for them to understand that these “contradictions” do not

exist.]

John Galt of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged says that “[arriving] at a contradiction is to

confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and

to evict oneself from the realm of reality.” (930) The contradiction to which he is referring is

the notion that man must put his own desires aside in order to thrive. However, the major

contradiction that is present throughout the entirety of Atlas Shrugged lies in the belief that

the reality in which the heroes of this novel exist is any more objective than that of the

‘looters’, because the actions and inner thoughts of said heroes routinely go against Rand’s

definition of objective reality, as stated in an interview from 19621; she argues that “reality

exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes

or fears.” The fundamental idea behind this statement is that reason is separate from

subjectivity. Yet the ‘reasonable’ worldview shared by John Galt, Dagny Taggart, Hank

1 (Ayn Rand, "Introducing Objectivism," The Objectivist Newsletter Vol. 1 No. 8, August 1962, p. 35)
Rearden and Francisco d’Anconia stems from their desire for power and self-satisfaction,

feelings which are unavoidably biased. From this contradiction stems further discrepancies

between what Rand says and what she shows through her fiction: she insists that collectivism

is the death of human progress. However, one only has to go outside and observe the daily

cooperation of their local community to prove the utopic reality in Atlas Shrugged as not only

contrived, but dangerous for human existence.

In his speech explaining the nature of the industrialists’ strike, Galt states that his

detractors “are unwilling to perceive a reality undistorted by their feelings.” (948) He fails to

realize that it’s not that they are unwilling to perceive objective reality, it’s that they are

unable to do so; it has been proven impossible for man to completely separate his emotions

from his knowledge and identity, because emotions are derived from these elemental

components of his mind and exist as a coping mechanism for any external stimuli he might

receive. The heroes of Atlas Shrugged are written as human beings, and therefore cannot

experience the objective reality described by Rand, as this reality requires the complete

exclusion of subjectivity and bias. From this premise stems the first contradiction that exists

in Atlas Shrugged; throughout the novel, Rand exalts the joy that is derived from pure self-

interest, but since man’s wishes and feelings have no place in her definition of objective

reality, is it truly reasonable to pursue one’s own desires to such an extent? Is it realistic and

logical to make happiness the goal of one’s life when Rand states otherwise in her

philosophy, the same philosophy to which the heroes of Atlas Shrugged are supposed to

adhere? Consider Hank Rearden, who claims that his sole reason for living is to be “lighted

by the flame of his success.” (892) This success is defined by his “work in the mines, in

foundries, in the steel mills of the north, moving toward the purpose he had chosen.” (36) He

later identifies this purpose as the innovation and production of Rearden Metal. However, this
metal doesn’t appear to serve a further purpose to Rearden himself—it benefits the

production and prosperity of others, including his allies (especially in the construction of the

John Galt Line). To Hank, though, the benefits of the metal end with its existence. This likely

means that the creation of Rearden Metal serves only to indulge Rearden’s ego through the

execution of his ability. This is the purpose that Rand heralds as ‘reasonable’ and ‘moral’,

despite it being a direct contradiction to her definition of ‘reason’, this being that ‘reason’ is

completely separate from ‘man’s wishes and desires’. John Galt, Dagny Taggart and

Francisco d’Anconia also give this selfish purpose to their work; therefore, it can be said that

the heroes of Atlas Shrugged do not experience Rand’s definition of objective reality because

they are motivated largely by their own desires.

The reality presented in Atlas Shrugged contradicts not only objectivist reality, but our

own tangible one as well. This discrepancy stems from Ayn Rand’s stance on collectivism:

“If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject.”2

Countless social experiments have proven that in our world, no man can exist entirely on his

own. From this fact stems a second major contradiction within Atlas Shrugged: the idea that

Galt’s Gulch could ever exist without collective action. The capitalist valley described in part

three of the novel is a prime example of a utopia. However, utopias cannot and do not exist

beyond the world of fiction because they depend on the distortion of reality, the objective

world and of human nature to fit the author’s personal desires and beliefs on how the world

should be. Rand’s choice to describe her philosophy through John Galt, a fictional character

who exists in a fictional narrative depicting a fictional and exaggerated reality, results in the

utopian Galt’s Gulch, which she appropriately refers to as ‘Atlantis’ in the first chapter of

part three. Galt’s Gulch is a society based solely on Objectivism, which rejects the idea that

human beings have any moral responsibilities or commitments toward each other. However,
2 (Ayn Rand Quotes. BrainyQuote.com, Xplore Inc, 2018. https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/ayn_rand_147956)
the text shows that in order to succeed and make the Gulch the paradise that is is, the heroes

of Atlas Shrugged must engage in collective action: “Here, [the industrialists] trade

achievements, not failures—values, not needs. [They’re] free of one another, yet [they] all

grow together.” (663) It is impossible to trade goods, thoughts and ideals with oneself; trade

requires the existence and cooperation of multiple individuals. Thus, it can be said that even

the ideal objectivist society, as represented by Galt’s Gulch, owes its existence to some form

of collectivism.

From the collectivist nature of human civilization stems a third contradiction: extreme

apathy towards the wellbeing of other people would endanger human existence rather than

create prosperity. This notion ultimately breaks down Rand’s justification for selfishness as

she presents it in Atlas Shrugged. She is convinced that it is immoral to give or receive aid of

any kind that is not in one's own self-interest. This could be understood to mean that it is

immoral to be a child, or to raise a child, because children require constant attention and aid

from their parents, with the parents expecting very little in return: “The woman in Bedroom

D, Car No. 10, was a mother who had put her two children to sleep in the berth above her,

carefully tucking them in, […] a mother whose husband held a government job enforcing

directives, which she defended by saying, “I don’t care, it’s only the rich that they hurt. After

all, I must think of my children.” (559) This woman, who understandably puts the welfare of

her children before that of nameless billionaires, is doomed to perish on the Comet’s fatal

voyage. Since every human being begins their life as a child, the belief that childish

dependency is unreasonable cannot be true; the state of being a child is rarely, if ever, held as

the child’s own immoral choice. Rand’s aversion to children poses a great dilemma to the

prosperity of Galt’s Gulch; if children cannot exist there because they are dependent on other

people, how can humanity be expected to survive in the Gulch beyond the first generation of
settlers? Considering this threat against our species, it is inconceivable for one to consider the

vilification of children and of their parents’ care of them as reasonable. What exactly is

reason, if not to ensure the survival of the human race and by extension, the human mind?

To prove that the above contradictions don’t exist, the heroes of Atlas Shrugged would

need to acknowledge that their premises concerning their ideal society are misinformed. They

do not understand that their reality is just as subjective as that of their enemies, nor do they

understand that a lone man cannot create or support civilization. This misunderstanding of

themselves and their environment is a natural consequence of holding strong beliefs; their

convictions outweigh objective reality in terms of importance. In his speech, John Galt

accuses his detractors of thinking irrationally: “They say: ‘I want it, therefore it is.” (949),

failing to see that he also bases his perception of the world on how he wants it to be. While it

is true that human progress requires the exaltation of an individual’s talents, it is also true that

cooperation and self-sacrifice help to transform the physical objects and resources derived

through one’s work into the basis for civilization. Acknowledging that Galt’s Gulch owes its

existence to collectivism would prove that societies are built upon a balance of both altruism

and selfishness. As such, the conviction that a single person can move the world is the false

premise creating the contradictions within Atlas Shrugged.