Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Wynand As Psychological Archetype

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

For many Objectivists one of the most fascinating Ayn Rand characters is Gail Wynand. He suffered from evil premises, errors of knowledge, and blatant immoral actions. And yet he was Howard Roark’s best friend. This fact represents the idea that in existence, a Roark and a Wyand could be friends. But their break up represents the idea that it shouldn’t last without an eventual dramatic character change.

Can someone more knowledgeable explain this relationship to me?

Or Ayn Rand admired Hugo, Rostand, Schiller, and in her earlier years she was inspired by Nietzsche. What psychologically explains this? Can philosophy explain this? How about psycho-epistemology?

In the lecture course Eight Great Plays, Peikoff regrets that he hardly asked Ayn Rand about her thoughts on the great Romantic Dramatists and Novelists. For example, Schiller is an obvious Kantian and yet in the only line I know where she mentions him, she ranks him along with Rostand (who most of us love), as the greatest of dramatists. It is Romantic literature of writers with bad philosophies who gave Ayn Rand much of the fuel that she needed to live her life—another spectacle of an achievement that was not hers!

Surely, if Ayn Rand could have these men at her dinner table, she would be exhilarated with questions and answers—it would be a banquet that no Platonic dialogue could match.

So my question is, among others implied above, how can friendship exist among philosophical foes? This is a sincere question. In my own short life, I have met people to whom I have experienced a mysterious but powerful love, and yet these people have had tragic philosophies, but their “sense of life” was remarkable. Please answer.

(This is my first real question on this forum. Previously I only gave my own take on the topics. Now I have a question I’m excited about.).

Sincerely,

Americo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although i am not an 'objectvist', my philosophy on life is very different from that of my friends... it always has been... well, before it was 'cause i used to be a 'mormon'... and so i had to be an example to my pals... the mormons called it 'living in this world but not of this world'... so i had this idea that of course i was right, and sooner or later everyone else would see that, but until then, i could still be friends with them even though they don't believe in what i believe...

now that my friends are all communists or anarchists, and i find myself gravitating towards more rational views of the world, I am able to stay close with my friends even tho our beliefs differentiate dramatically. In fact, most of our discussions are incredible, as i get to bounce my ideas off them and strengthen my debating skills.

My husband is anti-corporation. I am anti-dishonesty. he and i just don't discuss our beliefs all the time... instead we support each other anmd love ech other and enjoy each other. If i don't agree with him, i disagree. If he disagrees with me, he tells me so, but we don't let it ruin our relationship. We have too much else that we share...

This is what i never understood about Rand andthe Objectivist philosophy, that you can just dismiss others because they don't believe what you believe...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So my question is, among others implied above, how can friendship exist among philosophical foes?

Friendships are based on shared values as the bond that ties two people together.

There are many people with whom we can disagree about philosophical -- and even political and religious views -- who may share our very deep personal values in art or other sense of life matters. Ayn Rand had a frienship with Mickey Spillaine, a Jehovah's Witness. If they had been contemporaries, I'm sure there would have been a friendship between Ayn Rand and Victor Hugo even though he was a Socialist and a Christian.

While values tie people together, the fact that people can have mixed premises or false ideas can complicate and often destroy friendships. It happened between Roark and Wynand.

That is why it is necessary to have a clear and realistic evaluation of the people you deal with. Most people have mixed premises. It is possible to enjoy the values you share with them as long as you are aware of, and can deal with, the parts of their character you may DISvalue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So my question is, among others implied above, how can friendship exist among philosophical foes? This is a sincere question. In my own short life, I have met people to whom I have experienced a mysterious but powerful love, and yet these people have had tragic philosophies, but their ?sense of life? was remarkable. Please answer.

I think people with different views are often more interesting to talk to. Continually debating with people who agree with you on most things tends to get boring. If someone is sufficiently intelligent, they're likely to provide enjoyable conversation regardless of their beliefs.

Obviously this alone won't make them one of your good friends, but when you spend a lot of time talking to a person, your affection towards them tends to grow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it's because I just read it, but I think the Night of January 16th's introduction deals with this subject in a way. The name escapes me, but the main character is based off of a ruthless immoral businessman, and he loves and is loved by his secretary, a woman whose description just reminded me of Dagny Taggart.

It seems that the way the two come together is sense of life. The book sort of sold me on the idea that sense of life is what really matters, politics be damned. Sense of life is obviously going to correlate with certain ideas more than others, but in general you'd be safe being friends with those of a certain sense.

For me, I don't think Communists or Anarchists have a sense of life that I like being around. It's not to say that all Communists or Anarchists have a bad kind, but I have a strong prejudice against them that they'd have to overcome with something special.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what i never understood about Rand andthe Objectivist philosophy, that you can just dismiss others because they don't believe what you believe...

Where did you get this idea? I doubt you could easily find an Objectivist who didn't have close friends that were not Objectivists. Most of my closest friends are not Objectivists, and we disagree about a lot of things, and the same is true of most other Objectivists I know. Objectivism is not some cult that forbids its "members" to have contact with the outside world.

I think as far as the friendship between Roark and Wynand goes, it is exactly what others here have already mentioned--shared values, including sense of life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...