1.

Hank Rearden says that the killer tenet which destroys a man is the soul-body dichotomythat this
wrong idea has been the source of his lifes pain. What do you think this dichotomy is? How has it
wreaked havoc in Hanks life?

In the very root of ancient philosophical paradigms, a specific conundrum has been almost
sempiternally present in the influential minds of some of historys most authoritative philosophers
and writers. The relationship between body and soul has been the subject of countless hours of
mentally exhausting philosophical gymnastics by such prominent figures as Socrates, Plato, and
Aristotle. In fact, the primitive origins of this particular desire to understand the symbiosis between
the spirit and body can, albeit arguably, even be traced back to the sixth century BCE, to the
Milesian school of thought; whose foremost advocates went as far as not even conceiving the idea
of a divergence between spirit and matter in their particular Weltanschauung. The result of this was
a sui generis solution, videlicet; the kind that denies that there even is a problem to solve in the first
place. It was like this that Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes disentangled the semantic knot of
this potential philosophical catastrophe a priori, i.e. before it even manifested itself. Their stand on
this matter is by no means whatsoever what is colloquially deemed a cop-out. It is a profound
philosophical statement which can perhaps be, although anachronically, best explained by means
of this quote by Jorge Luis Borges from his famous poem Fragmentos de un Evangelio Apcrifo:
(Fragments from an Apocryphal Gospel) You are your body and, you are your soul, and it is
arduous, or impossible to determine the frontier that divides them As conclusive as this doctrine
may sound, the Milesian theory sits at the very start line of this odyssey to define the relationship
between soul and body and it is not until the prime concern of philosophical tendencies steers onto
the branch of what former Cambridge professor K.C. Guthrie baptized Practical Philosophy that
the study of this abstract symbiosis reaches a level of hitherto inexperienced refinement. This is
perhaps best evidenced with this (paraphrased) quote, often attributed to Aristotle, but arguably the
representative of one of the paramount aspects of the whole Socratic school of thought.
We cannot truly understand the soul if we forget the body through which it manifests itself
From these two quotes we can conclude that the dichotomy of body and soul is not really a forcibly
universally applying concept. The divergence between these two notions is only as ample as every
man allows it to be; the gap can range from the ludicrously undramatical to the abysmally insane.
Unfortunately, the magnitude of this crack on the philosophical foundations of man is not
determined through his conscious decisions, but through his subconscious modus operandi. If a
particular mans soul entertains conflicting interests to those of his body, then a divergence between
the two is exactly what he is instigating, and, depending on the severity of the discrepancy, this can
even end in absolute tragedy. This happens because a psychological slaughter is the only possible
result engendered by the two primordial components of a man in a blatant war against the other,
with that mans life being the battlefield.
However, it is imperative to state that these internal, warmongering tactics are not something that is
inherent to the human condition. Life is not a quasi-original-sin-esque scenario which condemns
man to be divided from the very start, vitiated with a primordial yawning wound which grows ad
infinitum, destroying its host inch by inch until death can finally rip him apart. On the contrary, the
Milesians theory in re to this dichotomy i.e. it being completely nonexistent- is quintessentially
embodied in philosophically equanimous people. -We can appreciate that most wholesomely in the
character of John Galt- Soul and body are the materials from which man is made. A dichotomy is
not compulsory in the same way in which there is no discernible dichotomy between the engine of a
diesel locomotive, and the metal chassis on which it is mounted. Harmony between the two is the
ideal state, and, the only regime under which the motor, -be it the locomotives engine or its
analogic doppelganger- can most successfully develop its potential kinetic power to its most
glorious extent. For man to reach the most elysian definition of human, he has to be a kosmos in
himself. To Pythagoras a kosmos is an internally harmonious and ordered system, a result only
possibly enkindled by intramural cooperation and tranquility; it is utopic mutualism in a way in which
everything is premeditatedly destined to serve a purpose, with no force fighting against another.
However, even though weve established that the soul-body dichotomy is not a naturally occurring
phenomenon per se, this is only true in a kosmos. A man can also turn into its evil twin, a khaos, a
state of noetic anarchy and constant war.
What are its effects on a person? Well, in the case of Hank Rearden, we can see something
horrendous. He is clearly an amalgam of two different people. This dichotomy has wreaked havoc in
Hank Reardens life by discerping him down the middle with its figurative axe. I think that the
clearest way in which the khaotic schism can be explained is through its direct, pragmatic
consequences. I will present them here by juxtaposing the two facets of Hank Rearden. Hopefully,
this comparison will crack the cabalistic exoskeleton begotten by the quixotic application of purely
theoretical analysis:
Hank Rearden is the paragon self made man, Hank owes his position in the world not the alms and
handouts given to him by people in position of power in trade for stock market shares of his soul
and dignity, but to his own superlative ability. However, he is intrinsically dissevered:
On one hand, he is a steel tycoon who never stopped being a steel worker. A man who, at a
moments notice can jettison the million-dollar-contracts-signing mentality to use the same hand that
previously held the ostentatious pen to throw bullets of fire clay directly into the menacing, gaping
jaws of an overflowing furnace to dam the flow out of the incinerators ravenous rima oris.
On the other, he is a man who is willing to believe that he is the only one not entitled to condemn
actions. A perplexing thought Hank sporadically exhibits throughout the book is that, if he is
disgusted at something, his revulsion comes from a lack of understanding, not from the object of his
nausea being per se gruesome. He doesnt conceive evil in the world, because when he does, he
internalizes the problem and blames himself.
These two worldviews show that the soul body dichotomy is so abysmal in him, that the two facets
that comprise him are completely separated. His mind has adopted the mentality of the people who
hate who his body is; he says Im evil,[] selfish, conceited, cruel. [page 141] This is exactly why
we see him behave so irrationally in several chapters of the novel; there are times where his body
triumphs over his mind, and others in which his mind subdues his body.
His hamartia is that, while he possesses the carnal infrastructure of excellence, it is his mind that is
exerting a self undermining regime. The chasm between his mind and body is of catastrophic
amplitude. It is so ludicrously colossal that it is even evidenced in the physical world. We can see
that his mind and body have adopted different earthly residences. His minds habitat is clearly that
of his domestic home. A place where he trusts other peoples judgment over his own, and where he
is belittled by means of his own consent, viz; the sanction of the victim.
This presents a violent contrast compared to his bodys palace, the steel mills. A glistening
industrial castle where he is revered as the king, a place where his ability is never put into question,
and where he is regarded as the prosopopoeia of competence.
However, a simple thesis/body antithesis/mind = synthesis/Hank Rearden equation isnt the
result of this. Dichotomies do not follow a dialectic process where sensible compromise is the
outcome. Dichotomies are war. And the only result of war is the complete annihilation of at least
one party, or both of them, in a nuclear holocaust. This is why it is no surprise that Hanks life orbits
around the nucleus of a mass of molten pain.
In conclusion, this dichotomy is a mental disorder which obviously, by virtue of its very name,
manifests itself in the mind and in the flesh. It is a mental disorder in the sense that it represents a
split personality, but the reader should bear in mind that the word personality is applied rather
unconventionally here. The notion that the concept of personality is trapped within the figurative
fortress of the intellectual faculties of the cerebral cortex should not be considered here.
Linguistically speaking, every definition put forth is doomed to fail as the English language has been
infiltrated by the noxious dichotomy itself. We think of personality as a faculty of the mind and of
motive power as one of the body, when in fact, the body can have just as much personality as the
mind and vice versa.
This division is thus, not as clean as it seems at first sight. The corporeal vessel doesnt simply
systematically scavenge for hedonism while the soul quietly reads Platos Phaedo. What happens is
that the subject in question affected by the soul-body dichotomy develops two simultaneously
occurring personalities, diverged from one another to the point where they can virtually seem like
two antipodally different people. Tragically, they do not depart from each other to live in peace, but
they run towards the other, arms in hands, to die.





Bibliography:
Guthrie, K.C William, Los Filosofos Griegos (The Greek Philosophers), Fondo de Cultura
Econmica, Mexico DF, 1953.
Borges, Jorge Luis, Fragmentos de un Evangelio Apcrifo