Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Concerto of Atlantis

Love at first sight

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Ok, Dan, I have read the blog post about you and Kelly. I would have to say that would be love at first meeting not love at first sight. Assuming you two actually had what you two felt about each other at the time correct (I will give you both the benefit of the doubt for now). However, I would say even love at first meeting is rare even for people who fully comprehend their own values. I still think even the week for the two characters in my book is unusually fast even for two people that fully comprehend their own values, which those two do.

As, for the other article, I am about to read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, Dan, I have read the other article. I would have to say Kelly seems quite attractive, both mentally and physically. Congratulations. I hope your relationship lasts.

However, my sense of smell is not a front line of evaluation. It hardly ever works at all. But that is just a limitation of my body. Actually, my eyesight is not good either (I am severely short sighted). I also have a problem with the connection between my ears and brain that causes the signal for the more complex sounds, such as human speech, to degrade, making me seem hard of hearing even though there is nothing wrong with my ears (in fact I had a hearing test and I heard about 99% of the sounds played in the test). Only my sense of taste and touch work properly.

Anyway, both of your blog posts were interesting reads and i am glad to hear you and Kelly have found such happiness. I hope I will find it as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would not call being smitten "love at first sight". I would call it "smitten at first sight" or "admitation at first sight".

So what would you call what happens in Anthem? And what Ayn Rand describes about Frank O'Conner definitely comes across as stronger than admiration.. Smitten seems acurate, but what is being smitten besides an early stage of romantic love?

Would you agree romantic love is not one singular emotion, but a series of experiences that moves through phases?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what would you call what happens in Anthem?

I would call it "love at first sight." However, that is fiction not real life. The fact that it happened in Anthem proves nothing.

And what Ayn Rand describes about Frank O'Conner definitely comes across as stronger than admiration.. Smitten seems acurate, but what is being smitten besides an early stage of romantic love?

I would call it the precursor to romantic love.

Would you agree romantic love is not one singular emotion, but a series of experiences that moves through phases?

Um, I am not really sure. I have only beein romantic love once and due to a mistake i made back then I didn't experience it properly, so i am not sure exactly what it is.

P.S. I am also not the best when it comes to understanding body language, etc., because I hae hardly ever looked at people.

Edited by DragonMaci

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was respinding to the example of Rand and her husband that was actually said, so no it was not as I was responding to something that was actually said not something that was not said.

(sorry if I'm threadjacking at this point!)

But nothing was actually said, besides the bare fact of it. So your response that it remains unproven seemed unnecessary and kind of petty. Obviously, if you don't actually have the example then you don't have the necessary details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You sort of have to first define what you mean by "love" to continue this discussion.

Clearly you can feel something for a stranger at first sight, based on what they look like. And I am talking about more than just physical attraction. Even without actual interaction, you can learn some things about a person by his body language and how he interacts to his environment. But is that something considered love?

I certainly don't think you can possibly have "true love" --that is, the highest order of romantic love-- simply by the sight of someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm with Jen on this one. I think LaFS is another way of saying that the initial emotion you felt (whether you actually knew the other person well enough to base that emotion in fact) proved out to be fully justified in the long run.

I agree. I think attraction at first sight is certainly plausible, but not love in a true sense. I think true love requires loving someones body & mind. I couldn't truly love someone if I despised her life philosophies & ideals, likewise I couldn't love someone if she was physically disgusting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would call it "love at first sight." However, that is fiction not real life. The fact that it happened in Anthem proves nothing.

I would call it the precursor to romantic love.

What is it about the events in Anthem that make them love at first sight? What makes them different from the example of Ayn Rand and Frank O'Conner, or any other plausible story you've heard of people meeting and "knowing" the other person is "the one" and eventually getting married? (Maybe I just talk to people about romance more than a normal person, but I've heard such stories many times).

Um, I am not really sure. I have only beein romantic love once and due to a mistake i made back then I didn't experience it properly, so i am not sure exactly what it is.

Nathaniel Branden's definition seems good to me: "Romantic love is a passionate spiritual-emotional-sexual attachment between two people that reflects a high regard for each other's value." But I'm not sure what he means by "between two people" (actually, I pulled that quote off the internet. I think in his book, The Psychology of Romantic Love, he says, "between a man and a woman" but I guess he revised it now that he's altered or suspended his previously stated views on homosexuals). I think unrequited love is possible, which is a love one person has for another that isn't reciprocated.. I'm not sure if that fits with his definition or not; it might be better if it were reworded a little. I think I would say "...a passionate spiritual-emotional-sexual attachment one person has for another that reflects..."

P.S. I am also not the best when it comes to understanding body language, etc., because I hae hardly ever looked at people.

Try looking at people.. You might be surprised what you see. (You might need a strong stomach sometimes. Other times, you might wish you had a camera, or a microscope--metaphorically speaking).

Edited by Bold Standard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clearly you can feel something for a stranger at first sight, based on what they look like. And I am talking about more than just physical attraction. Even without actual interaction, you can learn some things about a person by his body language and how he interacts to his environment. But is that something considered love?

I would agree with everything in that paragraph.But is that feeling love? Well, certainly not "true love". I would say that at best it could only be smitten. I would say being smitten at first sight is the closet one can come to love at first sight.

I think I would say "...a passionate spiritual-emotional-sexual attachment one person has for another that reflects..."

"a high regard for each other's value."

I agree with that, except that I would reword it, "A passionate spiritual-emotional-sexual attachment one person has for another that reflects a high regard for that person's value. The opinion that the other person is the most valuable individual one has meet."

I wish I had not lost this chapter I once wrote on love (it wasa chapter for the novel I am writing). It was a good statement of my opinions on love.

Try looking at people.. You might be surprised what you see. (You might need a strong stomach sometimes. Other times, you might wish you had a camera, or a microscope--metaphorically speaking).

It is hard for me to do. It is a left over from my teenage years, during which I was shy. I am no longer shy, so i do not know why it is still hard for me to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The opinion that the other person is the most valuable individual one has meet."

I don't believe that's necessary for love.. It's possible. But I think it's possible to fall in love with someone to a lesser extent than one has loved before, or to love more than one person at once, even.

I would agree with everything in that paragraph.But is that feeling love? Well, certainly not "true love". I would say that at best it could only be smitten. I would say being smitten at first sight is the closet one can come to love at first sight.

I certainly don't think you can possibly have "true love" --that is, the highest order of romantic love-- simply by the sight of someone.

I'm not sure I understand what's meant by "true love" here. As I understand romantic love, which is a process that evolves and develops and waxes and wanes, it's hard for me to distinguish a "highest order". Is this meant to be a description of the plateaus that occur within a relationship, when it is at its strongest, and the greatest degrees of intimacy have been achieved? Or is it a description of one particular type of relationship, peaks and valleys included, as opposed to other romantic relationships in which the peaks never get as high? If you mean the first, then I think I'd agree, "true love" at first sight is probably impossible. It is hard to imagine any first encounter possessing the same significance and intensity of a love which has been fostered between two people for years and had time to mature. But if you mean the second, I think "true love" at first sight is possible--I think it's possible to recognize that a particular person is well suited to be an exceptional romantic partner before any actual conversations begin, and that can be the beginning of a "true love" relationship, which is experienced as different from the beginnings of other types of relationships. But on that definition, I think it's also possible for "true love" to develop between people who did not experience "love at first sight", and might not have even initially been attracted to each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm...I saw this quote at the top of the home page and thought of this thread immediately:

"Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life" -- Ayn Rand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm with Jen on this one. I think LaFS is another way of saying that the initial emotion you felt (whether you actually knew the other person well enough to base that emotion in fact) proved out to be fully justified in the long run.

I'm skeptical to think that you can communicate enough of your values via body language in one glance to cause another person to know that they're in love. Certainly you can communicate enough to know that you admire someone for that limited amount that they do communicate which can be the cause of that initial feeling and would certianly be valid.

I agree with KendallJ (and Jen).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Um, what does that mean?

It means different in kind as opposed to different in degree. If something is quantitatively different that means you have more or less of it, if something is qualitatively different it means the nature of the thing is fundamentally different in some way.

For example, if you have a tent shelter, if you exchange it for a larger tent that's a quantitative improvement. You have more space. If, on the other hand, you exchange it for a house with a roof, that's a qualitative improvement: you have an entirely different type of roof that does it's job much better.

People only have a very narrow range of emotional responses: I don't think you have an entirely different (qualitatively different) response to someone when you are certain you are totally in love with them, unless an absence of doubt counts as a different response. That's why I asked the question. Anyway, what I have personally experienced is a quantitative change: you love them more or less intensely and certainly than you did.

It's not that there are ten thousand slightly different states (in love, infatuated, possibly in love, really in love, attracted, puppy love) that people are subsuming under the idea "in love", it's that there's one state that differs in degree depending on the situation. You may find the need for hyper-specific terminology if you are having a hyper-specific discussion, just as artists may find it useful to refer to taupe and ebony instead of brown, but for everyday use "in love" is good enough to cover the whole category. That is why the idea of LaFS arises: because you're not being hyper-specific about referring to one degree of love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People only have a very narrow range of emotional responses: I don't think you have an entirely different (qualitatively different) response to someone when you are certain you are totally in love with them, unless an absence of doubt counts as a different response.

I would call the lack of doubt a lack of a disqualifier rather than a different response. And, on a side note, I think certaintity is a qualifier rather than a different response. Obviously I think being neither doubtful nor certain as a lack of a qualifier and a lack of a disqualifier.

That's why I asked the question. Anyway, what I have personally experienced is a quantitative change: you love them more or less intensely and certainly than you did.

Well, I am talking romantic love at first site, not platonic love or being smitten, so I suppose I am talking about a quantitive difference, since romantic love is stronger than other forms of love.

It's not that there are ten thousand slightly different states (in love, infatuated, possibly in love, really in love, attracted, puppy love) that people are subsuming under the idea "in love", it's that there's one state that differs in degree depending on the situation.

Well, I think I just made it quite clear I am aware of that. I don't consider romantic love and platonic love to be seperate emotions. They are degrees of the same emotion.

You may find the need for hyper-specific terminology if you are having a hyper-specific discussion, just as artists may find it useful to refer to taupe and ebony instead of brown, but for everyday use "in love" is good enough to cover the whole category.

Yes, but the point of this thread was a specific form of love, i.e., romantic love, not the whole category, so "in love" will not do for the context of this thread.

That is why the idea of LaFS arises: because you're not being hyper-specific about referring to one degree of love.

I am not sure what you are trying to say with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would call the lack of doubt a lack of a disqualifier rather than a different response. And, on a side note, I think certaintity is a qualifier rather than a different response. Obviously I think being neither doubtful nor certain as a lack of a qualifier and a lack of a disqualifier.
I don't care what you want to call it.
Well, I am talking romantic love at first site, not platonic love or being smitten, so I suppose I am talking about a quantitive difference, since romantic love is stronger than other forms of love.
Yes, but the point of this thread was a specific form of love, i.e., romantic love, not the whole category, so "in love" will not do for the context of this thread.
So is it quantitative or qualitative? If you just think of it as a quantitative difference it makes perfect sense to talk about LaFS. If it's a difference in type, which is a qualitative difference, it doesn't really.
I am not sure what you are trying to say with that.
You can have different names for specific degrees of something that differs only in quantity: if you are cold, for instance, you might say "I'm chilly" or "I'm freezing!" or "it's a bit cool" or "it's brisk". . . the only difference is in degree. If you view affection as being a single emotional state with different degrees of strength, you also use specific terminology to refer to these degrees, "This is my buddy, we're friends, we're best friends, I love you man!" etc. You can say, "I love so-and-so" as a general term just like you can say "It's cold" without giving a specific degree, i.e. without using specific terminology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So is it quantitative or qualitative?

I already said which I think it is.

If you just think of it as a quantitative difference it makes perfect sense to talk about LaFS.

The let me give a clarification that I already gave and you seemed to of missed: romantic love at first sight. The closest to that I believe that can happen is smitten at first site.

You can have different names for specific degrees of something that differs only in quantity: if you are cold, for instance, you might say "I'm chilly" or "I'm freezing!" or "it's a bit cool" or "it's brisk". . . the only difference is in degree.

I am quite aware of that.

If you view affection as being a single emotional state with different degrees of strength, you also use specific terminology to refer to these degrees, "This is my buddy, we're friends, we're best friends, I love you man!" etc.

That's a bit repetitive really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Try looking at people.. You might be surprised what you see. (You might need a strong stomach sometimes. Other times, you might wish you had a camera, or a microscope--metaphorically speaking).

You were right. I was surprised by how much I could see about my dance instructor from her body language. I didn't think myself capable of seeing that much. I have seen enough to be at least smitten at first sight. I didn't think myself capable of seeing that much. But now that I looked I have. And I think the fact that dancing is ecentuated body language can only explain a small portion of what I saw. But I don't think what I feel now is love.

Anyway, given how I feel about her, I have just re-read this entire thread and I am reviewing everything that has been said. I am also going to compare my definition of love and how I feel about her. I will get back to you all on the result as soon as I can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personal experience trumps theorizing yet again. Good to see you exercising your inductive abilities! I look forward to hearing about your experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personal experience trumps theorizing yet again. Good to see you exercising your inductive abilities! I look forward to hearing about your experience.

Well, I don't yet know if what I feel is LaFS, but I am beginning to wonder. My experience with my emptions about my instructor are making me reconsider this debate despite me previously considering it closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The title expains my question really. I want to know how quickly romantic love can happen. Spefically, I want to know if you think romantic love can happen as quickly as it did in Anthem (I just finished reading it yesterday). Given that the two people did not really know each other's values, just what they saw in each other's posture, eyes, etc, I do not think that real people could fall in love so quickly. What do you think?

P.S., if you think the title is not right tell me. I admit it might not be right because I had trouble coming up with a title, as I often do.

This sounds more like Lust to me. Good old Lust! It is what keeps the human race going strong.

Without the Steam Heat, love would soon become cool.

Bob Kolker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought 'lust' was the physical feeling of the rational values attached to someone (which culminates in love?).

I think "lust" is an anti-concept: just look at the way Mr. Kolker used it. It's usually used to connote "mere" physical desire . . . but there *is* no such thing as a strictly physical desire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think "lust" is an anti-concept: just look at the way Mr. Kolker used it. It's usually used to connote "mere" physical desire . . . but there *is* no such thing as a strictly physical desire.

Well, when I first see a physically attractive woman, I am attracted but it's really provisional. To some intent you can conclude she's intelligent, mostly from the eyes, but that can be deceiving. If she opens her mouth and says something truly stupid (and I don't just mean momentary cranial flatulence), it's over, I don't care how well she is "stacked" at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think "lust" is an anti-concept: just look at the way Mr. Kolker used it. It's usually used to connote "mere" physical desire . . . but there *is* no such thing as a strictly physical desire.

It is Lust at First Sight. Love comes later (if at all) when one gets to know the object of his/her Lust.

If the physical yen were all there was, then why bother with live girls (or boys)? A party doll would do just as well. Clearly Lust is one part of the story, but it is an important part.

Bob Kolker

Share this post


Link to post
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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...