[continued from previous message]   
      
   "World as Will" which had nothing whatsoever to do with earthly power.   
      
   Nietzsche's philosophy was borrowed lock, stock and barrel from   
   Schopenhauer (just as Rand's Objectivist philosophy was borrowed lock,   
   stock and barrel from Nietzsche).  Nietzsche recast Schopenhauer's   
   beliefs (whose write in a dull, ponderous style) as sharp-witted, often   
   satirical, and highly quotable sayings which found a lasting interest   
   with the reading public; and Rand turned Nietzsche's distillation of   
   Schopenhauer into popular novels.  But Schopenhaurean philosophy is at   
   the bottom of Nietzsche of both.   
      
   "Will" in Schopenhauer, is one of the two basic laws of nature upon   
   which all other natural laws are based -- i.e., the propensity for   
   matter to accumulate other matter unto itself.  Nietzsche applies this   
   law to humans, and concludes that we are equally compelled to achieve   
   our highest potential.  In other words -- we are all driven to seek out   
   means of growing as human beings (self-awareness, self-improvement,   
   Jungian Individuation, etc.).  *That* and that alone is all that   
   Nietzsche's "Will to Power" constitutes.   
      
      
   >> Wynand was an Ubermensch who *compromised* his principles in order to   
   >> maintain his wealth and power.   
   >   
   > He began *compromising* his sense of life in grade school, long before   
   > he would have developed any "principles". He was thoroughly compromised   
   > (a nicer word than corrupted, if you prefer it) long before he had any   
   > wealth and power.   
      
   Does Rand write this, or is it a supposition on your part?   
      
   I'm asking (as opposed to posing a rhetorical question), as it's been   
   roughly 35 years since I read The Fountainhead, and I don't remember any   
   mention of Wynand's school days in it.  As a Hearst/Kane representation,   
   I would assume that Wynand started out in publishing with his own   
   Manifesto which would have contained similar points to Kane's.  And,   
   while this might be a conflation of memories on my part, I seem to   
   recall Wynand telling either Roark or Dominique that he had started out   
   with high ideals, but was compelled to compromise them.  This revelation   
   would take place in conjunction with his paper's idealistic (and   
   self-destructive) support of Roark.   
      
   Not that the actual dates/events that compromised the innate nobility of   
   Wynand's character matter.  The end result remains the same.   
      
      
   >>  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.   
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   Again, your misunderstanding of Nietzsche borders on character   
   assassination and libel.  I have already discussed the misconception   
   that Nietzsche had any interest in the attainment of earthly power   
   ("Will to Power" was about achieving one's potential); I shall now   
   proceed to dismiss the charges that he espoused a rejection of ethics.   
   Nietzsche wrote that humans are "beyond good and evil."  By this, he   
   meant that "Good" and "Evil" are relative to the individual, as opposed   
   to being Platonic Ideals whose characteristics are set in stone.   
      
   While this view negates the Christian concept of morality, it does not   
   entail that one should live without ethics as a consequence.  Rather we   
   are each supposed to develop our own ethical beliefs based on our unique   
   understanding of ourselves and our relation to the world at large.  IOW:   
   No one can proclaim any ideal to be universally "good" or "evil."  We   
   each have to decide for ourselves -- and whatever we decide with be the   
   correct answer for us.  Roark (the embodiment of Nietzschean philosophy)   
   had an ethical code which justified his raping Dominique, and blowing up   
   an apartment building.  Not everyone would agree with such an ethical   
   code, but for Roark, he was acting ethically in both instances.   
      
      
   >>>> 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.   
      
   That is the opposite of an Ubermensch.  The Ubermensch, or Overman, was   
   a higher evolutionary form that humans are driven (by the Will to Power)   
   to strive for, but which had not yet been attained.  The Overman would   
   be so much more highly developed than present day humans, that we would   
   be incapable of perceiving what such a higher form would be.  The idea   
   is similar to saying that we use only 10% of our brain, and that were we   
   capable of using it all, we could do virtually anything.  The Overman is   
   the self-actuated individual taken to the nth degree.   
      
   Not only would the Nietzschean ideal of the Ubermensch *not* be   
   dominating other people, but *all* of the other people would either be   
   fellow Overmen, or on the road to becoming fellow Overmen.  Nietzsche   
   would be rolling over in his grave to think that his Ubermensch could be   
   so misrepresented (as seeking wealth and power) as you have done above.   
      
   FWIW: I have read the complete (or nearly complete) works of both Rand   
   and Nietzsche, and profess to have at least a basic understanding of   
   their philosophy.  You used the phrase "as I've read him" regarding   
   Nietzsche (above).  I cannot believe that you have actually read   
   Nietzsche at all based on your skewed (to put it mildly) perceptions   
   regarding his views.  Perhaps you've read a few excerpts, or equally   
   ill-conceived passages *about* his views; but I can assure you that what   
   you've been calling "Nietzschean" here is nothing of the sort.   
      
      
   >> , 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.   
      
   I disagree.  They used the people as an excuse to gain power for   
   themselves.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Toohey was a spider.  He spun pretty webs to catch flies in.  But as the   
   flies eventually found out, the pretty webs weren't to their good at   
   all.   
      
   Toohey knows that he has nothing to offer the world.  He has no talents,   
   not profound thoughts, no... anything.  He therefore hates men like   
   Wynand -- self-made movers and shakers who are *actually* bent on   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)