[continued from previous message]   
      
   > (a nicer word than corrupted, if you prefer it) long before he had any   
   > wealth and power.   
   >   
   >   
   >>  He wasn't representing the Nietzschean   
   >> ideal -- he was representing the *failure* of it.   
   >   
   >> Roark, otoh,   
   >> represented a successful incarnation of that same ideal.  He was   
   >> ultimately successful because he refused to compromise his ethics for   
   >> success, wealth, and fame.   
      
   Yes, Howard Roarke wouldn't sell out like his friend Peter Keating was   
   willing to do.   
      
   > That's not Nietzschean at all, as I've read him. Nietzche championed the   
   > man with no ethics, the man who lived for power over others. Wynand was   
   > Rand's view of where that worldview ultimately led.   
   >   
   >>>> 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.   
   >   
   >> 1) As noted above, Wynand is not a villain.  He is a tragic figure (a   
   >> failed Ubermensch)   
   >   
   > No, as the tycoon of incalculable wealth and power, Wynand was   
   > Neitzche's Ubermensch come to life.   
   >   
   >> , until the novel's end wherein he is redeemed.   
   >   
   >> 2) I just googled Toohey, and here's what Sparknotes has to say: "His   
   >> tactics frequently evoke those of Joseph Stalin, the former Russian   
   >> revolutionary who emerged as Russia's dictator."   
   >   
   > Exactly. Both Toohey and Stalin were selfless servants of the people -   
   > they had no interests of their own, but dedicated their lives to the   
   > people. All they wanted in return was total control - not for   
   > themselves, but for the people.   
   >   
   > Toohey was the completely selfless man - the man who wanted nothing for   
   > himself, but only wanted the public good; and therefore wanted to break   
   > everyone who maintained a private life, or a sense of self.   
   >   
   >> You really don't get Ayn Rand, George.  I find this revelation most   
   >> disheartening, as you claim to have read and studied all of her works.   
   >> To have missed her messages on pretty much every level imaginable, is...   
   >> well, it would be comparable to how I would feel if I found out that I'd   
   >> spent the past 40-odd years having misunderstood everything written by   
   >> Edgar Poe.   
   >   
   > I understand her just fine. I'd say that you were the one who   
   > misunderstands her, but (considering I'm not talking to a person but a   
   > sock) one knows where that would lead: You'd put your hands over your   
   > ears, stamp your little foot, and cry "IKYABWAI!" again.   
      
   That's definitely the Pendragon way.   
      
   😏   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)