are you saying that "_why" is a metonym for the Man Himself? i don't think that's valid (in a linguistic sense) - he was _why in a much deeper sense than "_why"

are you saying that "_why" is a metonym for the Man Himself? i don't think that's valid (in a linguistic sense) - he was _why in a much deeper sense than "_why" being some small part of him that was used as a stand-in for the whole. a metonym can derive from a role, but the role is not the metonym.