Does ethics allow for the existence of Ellsworth Toohey?

[Ed from OC 0]

There are plenty of people who are alive but choose not to pursue values that they consider good, whether by an objective standard or their own. A drug addict or alcoholic bum, for instance, pursue values in a very limited sense of sustaining their high; they want the next hit or drink, and don't think beyond that. Such people turn off their minds as a defense value.

But this is not Toohey; he is smart, conscious, and evil. Can such a man exist? What about someone like Kant; was he honestly mistaken? (I don't think so.) Kant's philosophy is consistent in its war on the requirements of man's life (reality, reason, egoism, and freedom) that I can't see how it was possible for him to be mistaken. The best that could be said is that he rationalized away the contradictions between his views and reality, and that was his defense mechanism.

And there are psychopaths, gangbangers, dictators and serial killers. Do they think their actions are good?

[organon 0]

I am still struggling to understand your theme or themes. Apparently you have two. I will offer my understanding of them, in my own words (which is the only way I can understand anything), and then you can correct me.

Theme 1: Ayn Rand wrote a novel, The Fountainhead, that is defective because one main character could not exist in such pure form in reality.

Theme 2: Even the most evil of men in real life have some good in them, at least in their own estimation.

Are these correct statements of the points you are trying to make?

I think theme 2 is an implication of my argument -- i.e., that, in order to live and act, a man needs some conviction of his own value. This implies the proposition you have identified. But my own, primary theme, again of which your proposition is an implication, is -- a man needs to be good in his own view in some way in order to continue living. He needs in some way to himself believe that he is worthy of life. Miss Rand wrote in Galt's speech:

"No man can survive the moment of pronouncing himself irredeemably evil; should he do it, his next moment is insanity or suicide."

And Stephen -- agreed that this is not a forum for pointing out supposed flaws in Miss Rand's work; whether a Romantic novel that presents a character who is psychologically impossible is flawed in that context. (And realize that The Fountainhead is one of my dearest artistic values.) The central theme here is: a man, any man, rational or otherwise, needs some conviction of his own goodness, his own value, in his own eyes in order to continue living, and whether, in the real world, Ellsworth Toohey is psychologically possible.

Here is another passage from GS in this context:

"By a feeling he has not learned to identify, but has derived from his first awareness of existence, from his discovery that he has to make choices, man knows that his desperate need of self-esteem is a matter of life or death. As a being of volitional consciousness, he knows that he must know his own value in order to maintain his own life...

"Every act of man's life has to be willed; the mere act of obtaining or eating his food implies that the person he preserves is worthy of being preserved...."

John

[Betsy Speicher 0]

I think theme 2 is an implication of my argument -- i.e., that, in order to live and act, a man needs some conviction of his own value. This implies the proposition you have identified. But my own, primary theme, again of which your proposition is an implication, is -- a man needs to be good in his own view in some way in order to continue living. He needs in some way to himself believe that he is worthy of life.

The mind/body dichotomy that affects most people leads to a moral/practical dichotomy and the personal conflict most people have between doing what is right and doing what is practical.

Toohey opted for doing the practical knowing consciously that it wasn't right. In another sense, he actually accepted the idea that the right thing to do is what is practical. This is a very common view.

If you read Stanton Samenow's Inside the Criminal Mind, he profiles many crooks who sincerely believe that conventional morality is for chumps and dishonesty is the key to survival and success.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Miss Rand wrote in Galt's speech:

"No man can survive the moment of pronouncing himself irredeemably evil; should he do it, his next moment is insanity or suicide."

Exactly what is it that you think this quote shows? Do you think that Toohey has pronounced himself "irredeemably evil?" I certainly don't. Toohey chooses a course of evil, but that does not mean he is himself aware of that choice in terms of good and evil. Toohey doesn't say to himself "Independence is the good, so I will not be independent." Instead, Toohey lacks independence -- that is his character -- so he seeks to tear down independence in others. The evil is in the choice that Toohey makes, not in his awareness of it as evil.

And Stephen -- agreed that this is not a forum for pointing out supposed flaws in Miss Rand's work ...

Let me expand on my earlier comment to make my position clear. THE FORUM is not a place for members to speak of flaws and errors in Miss Rand, her philosophy, or in any portion of her work. It is okay, for instance, to disagree with some aspect of Objectivism, but the default position on THE FORUM is that Objectivism is correct and the one who disagrees should be seeking a better understanding of the philosophy in order to correct his error. So the focus of any discussion should be the ideas involved in the person's disagreement, not some summary judgment of Objectivism or Ayn Rand.

The central theme here is: a man, any man, rational or otherwise, needs some conviction of his own goodness, his own value, in his own eyes in order to continue living ...

Do you mean explicitly, or implicitly. Every breath that a man continues to take implicitly means he values his own life, but that does not mean he is consciously aware of that as an issue. There are all too many people who do not see the world, nor themselves, in terms of good and evil, in terms of worthiness, and instead they focus on whatever gives them pleasure, on whatever satisfies their immediate need.

... and whether, in the real world, Ellsworth Toohey is psychologically possible.

Here is another passage from GS in this context:

"By a feeling he has not learned to identify, but has derived from his first awareness of existence, from his discovery that he has to make choices, man knows that his desperate need of self-esteem is a matter of life or death. As a being of volitional consciousness, he knows that he must know his own value in order to maintain his own life...

But you left out the context from the previous paragraph, which ends with:

"The grim joke is on you: that need of self-esteem, which you're unable to explain or to define, belongs to my morality, not yours; it's the objective token of my code, it is my proof within your own soul."

There is an objective need for man to follow a proper morality, to honestly confront the facts of reality, but Toohey's choice of evil does not mean he is honest. Note how often Toohey puts on airs, seeking to create an impression for others. The facts do not truly matter to him, only those facts which suits his prupose.

"Every act of man's life has to be willed; the mere act of obtaining or eating his food implies that the person he preserves is worthy of being preserved...."

Yes. IMPLIES, not consciously necessitates.

[organon 0]

Exactly what is it that you think this quote shows? Do you think that Toohey has pronounced himself "irredeemably evil?" I certainly don't. Toohey chooses a course of evil, but that does not mean he is himself aware of that choice in terms of good and evil.

Do you think that Toohey is aware of the fact that Roark is good? (Consider the evidence below.) And if so, would you agree that he is aware of the fact that he is seeking to destroy, or shackle, Roark? I submit that Toohey is aware of that which he is doing -- and that that which he is doing is evil. Consider that in one scene he imagined his own body dropping to the pavement beneath him, killing him. Also consider his conversation with the police officer -- (roughly! don't have the page number) 'Saving lives, officer? You ought to arrest me.' Or when he speaks with Dominique, saying, again roughly, this may have been during the Banner's campaign against the Stoddard Temple, of the groups who were lashing Roark, "They should have come running to Roark's aid, if they value their own lives."

If indeed there is a "defense value" at work, what one is there that Toohey's mind wouldn't blow through?

[tommyedison 0]

Perhaps this quote will be helpful.

She said that her characterization of Toohey involved a certain degree of poetic license—that in real life, Toohey would have had to evade more and be less explicit to himself about his corrupt ideas. He couldn't act on them, she noted, if he said to himself: "All I want is destruction, as an end in itself; I am depraved." This is what Toohey thought, but she brought it out into the open, without evasions and defenses; so in that sense it was a literary device. Her view is that if you know the good, you do have to act on it—unless you evade it.

Interview with Dr. Peikoff

[Stephen Speicher 0]

If indeed there is a "defense value" at work, what one is there that Toohey's mind wouldn't blow through?

See below.

Perhaps this quote will be helpful.

She said that her characterization of Toohey involved a certain degree of poetic license—that in real life, Toohey would have had to evade more and be less explicit to himself about his corrupt ideas. He couldn't act on them, she noted, if he said to himself: "All I want is destruction, as an end in itself; I am depraved." This is what Toohey thought, but she brought it out into the open, without evasions and defenses; so in that sense it was a literary device. Her view is that if you know the good, you do have to act on it—unless you evade it.

Interview with Dr. Peikoff

Thanks for posting this. These words are very close to Burgess' view, which I objected to in an earlier post. I have no reason to doubt Peikoff's recollection on this, so I accept this as being Miss Rand's view. Perhaps my disagreement with this view is not so much a matter of principle, but more a matter of degree. What I have in mind is especially the point about "without evasions and defenses." I would have to go back and read much of The Fountainhead yet again, with this issue particularly in mind, but what I hold in my mind about this aspect of Toohey's psychology is somewhat different from those words. For instance, I remembered this scene with Toohey as being representative.

Keating waited impatiently till she paused for an instant. He wanted to change the subject. He glanced about the room and saw the Sunday papers. This was a question he had wanted to ask for a long time. He asked cautiously:

"Ellsworth... what do you think of Roark?"

"Roark? Roark?" asked Toohey. "Who is Roark?"

The too innocent, too trifling manner in which he repeated the name, with the faint, contemptuous question mark quite audible at the end, made Keating certain that Toohey knew the name well. One did not stress total ignorance of a subject if one were in total ignorance of it. Keating said:

"Howard Roark. You know, the architect. The one who's doing the Enright House."

"Oh? Oh, yes, someone's doing that Enright House at last, isn't he?"

"There's a picture of it in the Chronicle today."

"Is there? I did glance through the Chronicle."

"And... what do you think of that building?"

"If it were important, I should have remembered it."

Toohey's dishonesty is clear. He seeks to create an impression different from the facts. Of course he knew Roark's name, and of course he knew Roark was doing the Enright House, and of course he saw the picture in the paper, and of course he remembered the building. But Toohey is being dishonest. Not a direct evasion, but a defense.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

Perhaps this quote will be helpful.

[...]

Interview with Dr. Peikoff

Tommy, thanks for pointing out Leonard Peikoff's comments about poetic license. That at least partly confirms my memory. Following are some of Ayn Rand's own comments about Toohey from a description of The Fountainhead that she wrote for prospective publishers, probably in 1940, according to David Harriman, editor, Journals of Ayn Rand. (Harriman inserted the square bracket comment in the following quotation, taken from p. 228.) I have added bold for emphasis.

Ellsworth M. Toohey ... is a creature of perfection in his own kind, just as Roark is a creature of perfection in his -- and the complete antithesis of Roark. ...

Basically, Toohey is non-creative. He has nothing of his own to offer -- to himself or to others. His evil lies in [the fact] that he knows it, accepts it and glories in it. ... Toohey ... knew himself to be incapable of intrinsic superiority or independence; he made of this his virtue; he dedicated himself to the destruction of all superiority and all independence. He accepted consciously the negation of all values, of all ideals, of all that is high and noble in man -- with a full realization of the meaning of such values. ... He chose to be consciously evil. He is the great Nihilist in spirit. ...

Toohey understands human greatness ... Roark is great, but too unself-conscious to analyze or understand it -- for a long time. ... Toohey ... understands fully the basic antithesis ....

For a contrast to Ayn Rand's view of Toohey in 1940, see p. 102 of The Journals of Ayn Rand, written about three years earlier, in early 1937. Here, in the earlier view of Toohey, she repeatedly uses terms emphasizing psychological -- that is, subconscious -- motivations: ",,, an insane will to power ... a natural inferiority complex that subconsciously leads ... None of it is conscious -- just an innate instinct of self-preservation."

I have not made a full study of the novel. (I keep getting lost in the story.) What I infer tentatively from these writer's descriptions separated by three years is an astonishing growth not only in her understanding of the character but her confidence in presenting him as a thematic rather than naturalistic character. This sort of growth -- from one novel to the next, and one phase of creating a novel to the next phase -- is inspiring.

As intriguing as I find her comments above to be, I caution, however, against confusing the evolution of Ayn Rand's views of Toohey in her literary preparation with the view actually presented in The Fountainhead after all the editing was done. The novel should stand on its own as an object of literary study. An author's early notes might throw light on the final product, but that is all they can do. The text of the final novel would be the conclusive evidence.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Following are some of Ayn Rand's own comments about Toohey from a description of The Fountainhead that she wrote for prospective publishers, probably in 1940, according to David Harriman, editor, Journals of Ayn Rand....

For a contrast to Ayn Rand's view of Toohey in 1940, see p. 102 of The Journals of Ayn Rand, written about three years earlier, in early 1937....

What I infer tentatively from these writer's descriptions separated by three years ...

Burgess, what do you make of the Ayn Rand quote I posted earlier, words she wrote after publication of The Fountainhead, not before.

The Letters of Ayn Rand, p. 413, in a November 14, 1948 letter to another author, Miss Rand writes:

It is not an accident that you had to make Cristina a supernatural being. Again, the honesty of your talent as a novelist asserted itself and made you do it. You could not have made her an actual human being of flesh and blood. An actual human being acting on the altruist premise is Ellsworth Toohey. Altruism is impossible to man—impossible by the whole nature of the universe. Altruism is death and destruction.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

Burgess, what do you make of the Ayn Rand quote I posted earlier, words she wrote after publication of The Fountainhead, not before.

The Letters of Ayn Rand, p. 413, in a November 14, 1948 letter to another author, Miss Rand writes: [...]

In good humor, I can say, "Thanks for giving me an opportunity to analyze the most difficult paragraph in that letter!"

Here is the whole paragraph: "It is not an accident that you had to make Cristina a supernatural being. Again, the honesty of your talent as a novelist asserted itself and made you do it. You could not have made her an actual human being of flesh and blood. An actual human being acting on the altruist premise is Ellsworth Toohey. Altruism is impossible to man -- impossible by the whole nature of the universe. Altruism is death and destruction."

Caveats:

- To interpret that paragraph, I have to make inferences that I find merely plausible.

- She was writing the letter informally and without expectation of publication -- as is true of other passages from her journals and letters.

- I have not read the Carr novel she discusses, and so I am somewhat puzzled by her reference to Christina as a supernatural being, though Carr was indeed a two-worlder.

I will focus on the sentences that pertain to Toohey, who is the subject of this topic-thread, in part.

1. "An actual human being acting on the altruist premise is Ellsworth Toohey."

If the author, Carr, is a science fiction writer, does that mean Christina was an extraterrestrial, or an angel of pain, or something else from another dimension? I don't know for sure, which is unfortunate, because Ayn Rand compares Christina to Toohey (both are pure evil, but they have differences too). If Cristina truly is from another world, which seems to be true, then Ayn Rand's comment about Toohey being a flesh and blood person should be seen as a contrast to other-worldliness.

Toohey is presented as pure evil, and thus an extreme thematic character, but he is also presented as a unique, this-worldly individual perceptually -- just as John Galt is in Atlas Shrugged. There is no conflict between presenting Toohey, a thematically impossible-in-real-life character, as a unique individual in this world (as she stylized it).

So, in the quoted sentence above, I hold that Ayn Rand is saying this: She literarily presented a purely evil person who follows a premise which, if followed consistently in the real world, would lead to self-destruction, as if he were nevertheless a human being of this world. That is where the literary or poetic license comes in.

2. "Altruism is impossible to man -- impossible by the whole nature of the universe. Altruism is death and destruction.."

Here Ayn Rand is now speaking philosophically not literarily. (She warned Carr earlier that she would do so even though he might be a non-philosophical person.) She is saying here that altruism when fully and consistently practiced leads to destruction for man. Note the "man." It is not merely any particular man, but for man as a universal, that is, as a subject of philosophy, an abstraction. The philosophical orientation receives reinforcement from the next statement, which is metaphysical. Likewise, the next, short sentence is a universal, philosophical statement about what happens when the premise is applied consistently -- not in the dilute, confused manner of almost all particular individuals in our society in real life.

In summary, I would say this paragraph captures Ayn Rand's approach in the whole letter: weaving back and forth between literary issues and philosophical issues. And that is just what she said she would do, when she began her letter: "From a literary aspect ..." in the second paragraph, and "Your theme and your philosophical ideas ..." in the third paragraph.

In particular, in the paragraph you pointed out, I see confirmation (but evident only through tentative inferences) that she sees Toohey as a literarily presented particular individual who represents a pure thematic concept that could not be held purely in a real-life individual. The poetic license consists of literarily portraying a philosophical concept in a stylized real-life world.

I doubt I have anything more to add.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

In good humor, I can say, "Thanks for giving me an opportunity to analyze the most difficult paragraph in that letter!"

Here is the whole paragraph: "It is not an accident that you had to make Cristina a supernatural being. Again, the honesty of your talent as a novelist asserted itself and made you do it. You could not have made her an actual human being of flesh and blood. An actual human being acting on the altruist premise is Ellsworth Toohey. Altruism is impossible to man -- impossible by the whole nature of the universe. Altruism is death and destruction."

Thanks for your analysis, Burgess,

Going out of order, starting with your conclusion:

In particular, in the paragraph you pointed out, I see confirmation (but evident only through tentative inferences) that she sees Toohey as a literarily presented particular individual who represents a pure thematic concept that could not be held purely in a real-life individual. The poetic license consists of literarily portraying a philosophical concept in a stylized real-life world.

As worded, I agree with this. But I want to note that this is not the same as saying that the character Toohey, as he lives, eats, and breathes in the book, is not psychologically realizable in real-life.

If the author, Carr, is a science fiction writer, does that mean Christina was an extraterrestrial, or an angel of pain, or something else from another dimension? I don't know for sure, which is unfortunate, because Ayn Rand compares Christina to Toohey (both are pure evil, but they have differences too). If Cristina truly is from another world, which seems to be true, then Ayn Rand's comment about Toohey being a flesh and blood person should be seen as a contrast to other-worldliness.

I have not read the book in question (The Room Beyond), but from what I gather it was not sicence fiction. Carr published three regular novels, The Rampant Age (1928), The Bells of Saint Ivan's (1944), and The Room Beyond (1948). His science fiction work was first published in 1951, starting with the book Beyond Infinity. Since I have not read The Room Beyond I cannot be sure, but I suspect that Miss Rand's "supernatural" comment had to do with the character's ability to heal.

Interestingly, and this of course could not have been known by Miss Rand at the time, Carr became quite famous in 1974 when he presented the loony notion that the government had autopsied and held in storage alien beings from the supposed 1947 Roswell UFO crash in New Mexico. Carr's son, Timothy Spencer Carr, wrote an article in the July-August 1997 issue of Skeptical Inquirer in which he distanced himself from his father and painted him as a very intelligent but rather disturbed man. Apparently, his father only graduated from high school but signed some of these UFO-type articles with the title "Dr.," and in the UFO literature he is frequently referred to as "Professor Carr." Miss Rand had no way of knowing what a bizarre creature Robert Spencer Carr was to become.

(Note: I gleaned the information on Carr from the internet, not from any scholarly research. The internet, at times, can be unreliable, so take what I wrote with a grain of salt.)