Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
determinist

Did Ayn Rand live by her own philosophy?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Do the people we love have a moral obligation to never upset us?

The people we contract with have a moral obligation to uphold their end of the bargain;  that's the only context any evaluation of the actions of marital partners can respond to.

 

Did Ayn Rand make and break a vow to perform in a certain manner with her husband?  Minus the actual document as evidence, the rest is all hearsay and hardly a shining example of anything other than rationalizations being forwarded to fill in gaps of personal information we know little about, i.e. gossip.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feather. I am not sure why I am being told this. I made a point to say..

I wanted everyone to keep this in mind. I mentioned you specifically because of my point about jealousy that I was trying to segue into. The first part wasn't meant for you more than any other person; I was just trying to get it out of the way before getting to my main point. I probably should have mentioned it second and in a different paragraph.

Edited by FeatherFall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note where Barbara says "...once we decided it was reasonable and it was something we should accept, then I don't think we quite let ourselves know how desperately we were suffering." I can easily see this happening.. and how sad is that. She let herself be conned into believing that she should share her husband with other women, that it was the right, rational thing to do- even though that's the exact opposite of what she was thinking and feeling.

But see, that's it right there.  If she truly didn't want to share her husband then she should've said so.  Period.

Yes, he probably would have left her- but that's really just too bad.  Reality isn't always pleasant and one's spouse is part of reality, too.

 

Nobody wants to be told that they aren't satisfying their significant other.  It's an absolute nightmare.  But nobody wants to catch a terminal disease or get run over by a bus, either; sometimes reality completely screws good people over.

You can't prevent these things from happening.  You can increase or decrease their likelihood, but once they happen the only decision left open to you is what to do about it.

And the only thing you can do about it is to stay rational; any other reaction will make the situation worse.

What I really can't wrap my head around is how Frank and Barbara were unable to sit down and look at it logically before giving any answer.  The importance of the situation to them shouldn't have hindered their rational abilities; it should've augmented them.

(this is, of course, assuming that her testimony is accurate)

 

And really, if Rand was heartless towards her husband, how would we apply that standard to all of the heartless businessmen who have no concern for the feelings of their employees?

 

i think its orgasm, but i am not aware of the o'ist stance on masturbation

I really have no idea.  Is there one?

One would imagine it to fall under the pursuit of one's own selfish pleasure.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure if I agree with Rand's ideals as they concern things psychologic , that being said, she and NB obviously were sensitive to the ideal of honesty. Their respective spouses had every oppotunity to respond in any manner they wished.

I am not sure , but my reactions may have been different than those of their spouses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the most honest way to handle this is to discuss it with your partner at the beginning of the relationship. Simply saying something like, 'I'm open to dating multiple people at the same time' will let your partner know that you're open to the idea of having multiple sexual relationships. If your partner has a problem with this, he'll have time to either work through his issues, or leave the relationship without becoming too attached.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the most honest way to handle this is to discuss it with your partner at the beginning of the relationship. Simply saying something like, 'I'm open to dating multiple people at the same time' will let your partner know that you're open to the idea of having multiple sexual relationships. If your partner has a problem with this, he'll have time to either work through his issues, or leave the relationship without becoming too attached.

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand why thought should be given to action with recognition of the possibilities of outcomes, but my question is why(or how) does the inclusion of term 'sex' change the dynamic of the process? What is there about 'sex' that makes it a separate category from all other forms of human interactions?

 

I don't think the topic of "sex" changes the process at all, in terms of applying reason to human interactions. I think I am more in line with the side that doesn't consider sex to change the application of reason and human interactions. It's most everyone else, in my observation, who tend to treat sex as a wholly different category and begin to apply social conventions (and emotions like jealousy) to the interactions involving sex. 

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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...