Peter Keating

[drewfactor]

Upon recently finishing The Fountainhead for the first time, I must say that it's been a long time since I've felt such a poignant response from the way a fictional character is portrayed. What I felt to be a visceral emotional response from the character of Peter Keating was definitely a product of the way in which Rand brilliantly portrays him in contrast to Howard Roark.

With a little introspection, I've come to the conclusion that the reason I felt so "moved" by the portrayal of Peter Keating was due to the fact that our world is dominated by the "Peter Keating mentality." It's that sudden realization that my professional life, the world of politics, my academic career, and many of my so-called friends etc.. are all reflected or concretized in Rand's characterization of Peter Keating. What I mean is - so many of us live our lives by the guidance of using "others" as our standard of value. In Keating's case, it was the approval of his mother, Francon and Heyer, the Architectural Guild, and so on. In some instances it seemed to be simply his whims which drove him.

I couldn't help but feel sorry for the guy and wasn't sure whether to look at him as a victim, or the architect of his own destruction. Two poignant scenes to me are when he visits Roark to ask for assistance in designing the government housing project, and when Toohey visits him in his place. It was when Toohey visited him and gave that long diatribe in which I saw Keating as a victim of the "Toohey's of this world."

Anyone share similar thoughts or feelings?

I'm about to start Atlas Shrugged. Funnily enough, I've read most of Rand's non-fiction (such as VoS, ITOE, Capitalism, Philosophy: Who needs it) before delving into her two masterpieces. Anthem was my introduction Rand's fictional works. I really find that I'm gaining much value from having read her non-fiction first - especially in regard to gaining philosophical insights into the stories. I'm curious in others thoughts on this.

[softwareNerd]

... and sometimes, the Peter Keatings are held up as ideal for us to emulate.

[AMERICONORMAN]

Though I see second-handedness in most people I deal with, I've really only met one person in my life whose character screamed Peter Keating at me. Our thought processes were diametrically opposite; we clashed constantly. However, I do still suffer from second-handeness in some aspects of my psycho-epistemology. A couple of family members have often reminded me of Keating.

I don't usually feel hate for Keating when I read some scene where he makes the wrong choice. It is more like, "You idiot!", acknowledging his sever naivety.

I have never met a Ellesworth Toohey but ironically I am looking forward to meeting one, seeing him in the flesh.

What I run into more are the Wynand types who try to test me and challenge my integrity and principles.

Do you remember at Kiki Holcombe's party where Keating tells Peter that he loves Roark for the night and Roark replies, "You always will, Peter" (paraphrase). There relationship is interesting. I love how Roark expresses benevolence and generosity without being motivated by pity. (The only man he ever felt pity for and was ever tempted to comprise for was for Wynand; when Dominique comes to Monodnack and he asks her to wait to make public their love until Wynand heals.)

Americo.

[iouswuoibev]

...Keating tells Peter...

Did you mean to say that? Because it makes no sense.

[AMERICONORMAN]

Did you mean to say that? Because it makes no sense. 

No, of course not: Peter tells Roark that he loves Roark. Thanks for pointing that out.

Americo.

[drewfactor]

Though I see second-handedness in most people I deal with, I've really only met one person in my life whose character screamed Peter Keating at me.  Our thought processes were diametrically opposite; we clashed constantly.  However, I do still suffer from second-handeness in some aspects of my psycho-epistemology.  A couple of family members have often reminded me of Keating.

I have never met a Ellesworth Toohey but ironically I am looking forward to meeting one, seeing him in the flesh.

Americo.

I also feel that I do suffer from second-handedness in some aspects of my psycho-epistemology. I can only hope that a further understanding and fuller integration of Objectivism into my life can bring me to that goal. I suppose it's making that full realization of living as you "could and ought to be." Hence, I by no means consider myself anywhere near the status of someone like Roark with regard to integrity (as much as I'm trying to attain that status). On the other hand, I do see the "Keating syndrome" in someone I've known well for years. The parallels between him and Keating are incredible: He never did any work for himself in University (he just mooched off the others in his group); he's profoundly dishonest in romantic relationships; he parasitically mooched off of the welfare system for longer than he needed to (after having surgery); his life and happiness are constantly defined by "escaping reality" through "partying."

I know through some reading that (according to Objectivism) since our emotions are a product of our ideas, those that are considered "depressed" possibly need to readjust or adopt new ideas. I've been thinking about this in relation to Keeting's progressively depressed emotional state and the individual I'm referring to in this post (whom is actually diagnosed with depression). Especially after reading The Fountainhead, I'm convinced that happiness is a product of living a life of integrity (ie. having principles), and unhappiness (hence the so-called "high rates of depression" in our modern and technologically advanced capitalistic society that people love to denounce and label as the cause of the depression) comes from living a life devoid principles, of second-handedness.

Edited March 22, 2005 by drewfactor

[Jay P]

To the question about reading Rand's non-fiction first, before her fiction:

It's much less common than reading her fiction first. However, I too started

with her non-fiction when I first discovered Ayn Rand in 1975.

Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal happened to be the first book of hers

that I found. At that time I didn't even know she'd written any fiction, but

other people (who were not Objectivists, but who had heard of Ayn Rand)

saw me reading her books and strongly urged me to read her fiction.

I hadn't thought of it before but yes, I think that reading the non-fiction

first did give me some better understanding of the philosophical principles

she was demonstrating in Atlas Shrugged.

Since motivation is so important, I think it's best to study Objectivism

according to your interests. In my case, I had always been very interested

in Capitalism, so Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal was best for me

to start with. Having always been accused in my life of being "selfish"

because I pursued my own interests, the next one to read was of course

The Virtue of Selfishness.

After reading those two books, I knew I'd found an absolutely unique

writer whose ideas would profoundly influence me. Before reading Rand,

I had read much economics, but nobody who had ever presented a moral

defense of capitalism. This, I saw, is what is needed. And before reading

Rand, I had never, ever, heard of anybody challenging altruism on any

serious grounds.

Interestingly, incredible as it sounds today, I sort of resisted reading her

fiction at first. Even though I already knew she was a genius, I was

afraid that her fiction would somehow not measure up to the brilliant

insights of her non-fiction. I was actually afraid I'd be disappointed(!)

That's probably because I'd been disappointed earlier in life by so

much modern fiction that I'd had to read.

But, then I read Atlas Shrugged. And I will say that if you haven't

started reading it yet, you are in for a real treat of a lifetime. The book

is so well integrated, the characters are so memorable and the ideas so

well dramatized that I can practically pick up the book, start reading just

about anywhere, and be absorbed for the next two hours. (And I have

favorite scenes in both Atlas and The Fountainhead that I

can read any time, enjoy them, and come away feeling refreshed.)

Good reading!

[drewfactor]

To the question about reading Rand's non-fiction first, before her fiction:

Wow! Your reading pattern is almost identical to mine. I bought Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal first but then decided to read Virtue of Selfishness in order to have a better grasp on the ethics of Objectivism before delving into the politics of Objectivism. Understanding this hierarchy has had a profound benefit on my integration of the philosophy from an early start.

[Strangelove]

I have never met a Ellesworth Toohey but ironically I am looking forward to meeting one, seeing him in the flesh.

Hmm...

Michael Moore has many of Toohey's qualities...

[dondigitalia]

Hmm...

Michael Moore has many of Toohey's qualities...

They do share many of the same qualities, although I'd argue that Toohey was remarkably more intelligent than Moore. I highly doubt that Ayn Rand, in all her genius, could ever have written a character as villainous as Michael Moore.

[drewfactor]

I was visiting my local book store recently which is stocked full of leftist literature (hence I have to orde- in all my Objectivist and pro-capitalist books), and I browsed through some books by a guy named John Ralston Saul. This guy has much "Tooheyesque" qualities. I couldn't count how many times he mentioned the phrase "public good" along with his continued chiding of capitalism.

Another person that is rife with "Tooheyism" is Noam Chomsky. He gave a lecture at my University and people were lined up down the street to get tickets, yet no one seemed to know anything about who he was. Everyone seemed to be going to see him because everyone seemed to be going to see him. Upon reflection, I realize what a bunch of second-handers many of those students were. Granted, there were certainly those who went to see him for intellectual reasons, but many more simply went because "they heard he's good." No doubt because he's an American bashing collectivist. To many of us Canadians, we like those who bash America, it makes us "feel good."

[ArmyPatriot]

I also feel that I do suffer from second-handedness in some aspects of my psycho-epistemology.  I can only hope that a further understanding and fuller integration of Objectivism into my life can bring me to that goal.  I suppose it's making that full realization of living as you "could and ought to be."  Hence, I by no means consider myself anywhere near the status of someone like Roark with regard to integrity (as much as I'm trying to attain that status). 

It's too easy not to be a hack or a second-hander. Don't steal other people's ideas. Put forth your best effort in whatever you are doing. Remember that accepting handouts isn't going to make you happy. Work on tough objectives the smart way and you will earn your wealth every step of the way. That is one of the primary sources of happiness.

[the tortured one]

They do share many of the same qualities, although I'd argue that Toohey was remarkably more intelligent than Moore. I highly doubt that Ayn Rand, in all her genius, could ever have written a character as villainous as Michael Moore.

I wouls consider Toohey to be far more villainous as Moore. Moore at least has lots of people who hate him and expose his web of lies (I never met a Republican who liked Moore.) Toohey was the kind of person who was charismatic enough to be able to not have any popular enemies. That makes him far more of a snake than Moore.

As far as other Toohey's in the media go, someone else beat me to Noam Chomsky.

[suvine]

I just want to say reading all your posts, I am so excited. I had no idea others were all well educated in Ayn

Rand as me. This is the first week I discovered this forum andit blows my mind. I am right at home and know what all of you are talking about. I am in the midst of real objectivists, who understand and grasp it. I feel at home.

Since this is about Peter Keating, I always think of the actor in the movie preview for the Fountainhead. I have not seen it yet. I saw it on youtube. I would have thought a real Peter Keating would have been tall and handsome, overly concerned with his looks. He looked shorty and nerdy in the preview.

I see Peter Keating alot in Miami. There are alot of lawyers who go online and just copy documents because its too much work to write up a new one. They bring Judges gifts and hang with them.They have their juniors or paralegals do the work and take all credit. They don't really have a BMW, it's rented , when they could own a car.

I am guilty of it myself. I would copy others who are successful never thinking I could create ideas, out of nothing, and I can.

Ayn Rand said once, I can't remember how it goes, but I understood it as such< correct me, if I am wrong

Don't apologize for what you don't know, but take the blame for that which you do wrong that you do know..

( Art of Fiction)

I know better now and so do we all

And it hits home. It's like when you hear something you know is true. It feels right.

I think Peter Keating is an archtype, as all her characters. The new modern adult fairy tales of good and evil.

Edited September 5, 2007 by suvine

[aequalsa]

I'm convinced that happiness is a product of living a life of integrity (ie. having principles), and unhappiness (hence the so-called "high rates of depression" in our modern and technologically advanced capitalistic society that people love to denounce and label as the cause of the depression) comes from living a life devoid principles, of second-handedness.

This is right on the money. Without mental, emotional, and physical integration happiness in any longterm meaningful way is impossible. And of course, without identifying the correct principles to integrate your feelings and thoughts and actions around, integrating is not possible.

Regarding the second-handed psycho-epistemological problem, there is something I struggled with for a bit and thought I might save you the trouble.

Behaving like someone else, or behaving differently in different circumstances are not necessarily harmful behaviors. Anecdotally, I am a slightly introverted person but have a job which requires a certain level of extroversion. Accordingly, I am far more amicable and outgoing and loud while at work. It is simply the appropriate and necessary response to a responsibility which must be fulfilled.

Likewise if an individual had a certain style of writing, but was required to, say, write more formally for a research paper, he would not be betraying his "true self" in writing in the way his teacher requested.

The time to worry about second-handedness is only when your values are being sacrificed or you find yourself evading a issue. Copying someone else is how we, in point of fact, learn most of what we know. And a good thing too or we would need to reinvent the wheel with every endeavor.

Maybe its not an issue for you personally(nothing in your post indicated that it was), but I have seen this sort of hyper-individuality in myself and in others, so its something to be aware of. So in short, individuality need not be contrarian. Be an objectivist, not an objectionist.

-Criticisms, comments, and outright condemnations are all welcome as are additions to the idea.