[continued from previous message]   
      
   > context to serve their on nefarious ends), and his use of words like   
   > "Overman" and "Will to Power." We can dismiss the Nazi associations, as   
   > Nietzsche would have detested the Nazis and was outspoken against   
   > anti-Semitism in general.  "Overman" referred to a higher form of   
   > existence (a new evolutionary step in the progression of humankind), not   
   > some sort of overlord; and "Will to Power" referred to Schopenhauer's   
   > "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.   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)