Re: The Psycho-epistemolgy of MMP

On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 1:56:45 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:

On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 23:24:09 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 5:20:24 +0000, HarryLime wrote:

On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 23:38:44 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 4:07:04 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

For now I think of him as the Toohey type, but that could just be my
personal bias. The difference being that: Wynand was a Nietzschean; he
just wanted the power to control reality for itself, without any regard
for how it was used; while Toohey did have an agenda, a malevolent one
of stamping out and destroying all independent thought and creativity.

>
Hmm... as a publisher, I foster creativity -- providing other poets with
a forum in which to showcase their works.

>
Doesn't help; I'm sure that both Wynand and Toohey would have said they
were "fostering creativity." As a publisher, Wynand employed several
columnists who could write what they wanted -- unless they wrote
something he didn't like, in which case he'd "ban" (fire) them. That
last sounds like you. While Toohey's war on independent thought and
creativity was to assemble a collective of mediocre talents and promote
the hell out of them. That also sounds like you.
>
I'm afraid the question is still unresolved, and you haven't done a
thing to help resolve it.

>
You are devaluing Wynand.  Wynand's motivations were originally noble
(in Ayn Rand's view), but he became corrupted (or, rather, compromised)
over time.  Once having established a position of wealth and power, he
wanted to hold onto it, and was willing to compromise his ethics in
order to do so.

Wyand's motivations were never "noble". He was a Neitzschean, whose only
motivation was power; he wanted to "run things." Not power to do
anything, but simply power in itself; while his newspaper ran periodic
"crusades" (like the one to destroy Roark), Wynand himself didn't care
about them. While he did have some things he valued in his private life,
he kept that strictly hidden away. they did not motivate his public
life; and there is no indication in the book that he had any ethics at
all.

This is opposed to Roark, who is willing to risk
everything he owns, and all of the progress he has made in the hierarchy
of his chosen field, to be true to his personal values.

The difference between them is not whether they were true to their
values, but what values they were true to. Roark valued creativity,
doing things; Wynand valued having power, "running things" and the
people who did them.

Wynand redeems himself later in the novel, and is last seen having
returned to his original, Ubermenschian self.

Yes, that part of the story has a happy ending; Wynand "redeems" himself
by shutting down the Banner, giving up his quest for power over others.
As you know, Rand began writing /The Fountainhead/ as a Nietzchean, and
finished it as an Objectivist; and the story of Wynand symbolizes that
transition.
Except for that happy ending, Wynand is the character that fits you
best. You're still stuck in that quest for power for its own sake.

Toohey, otoh, is a one-dimensional symbol of the Communist party
leaders.  Toohey pretends to represent the people, but is using their
collective support as a means to self-empowerment.

No, that's wrong, too IMO. Toohey sincerely believed himself to be a
selfless servant of the people; his goal was not personal wealth or
power. Though, since you've been identified with Wynand, there is no
reason to discuss the other villains in the novel.
And that's enough for now. I have things to do.
snip