Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Love in AS

Rate this topic


Leonid

Recommended Posts

 Just as an idea unexpressed in physical action is contemptible hypocrisy, so is platonic love...

 

 

“The Meaning of Sex,”

For the New Intellectual, 100

 

Yet John Galt was in love with Dagny for many years before he could consummate it. And Franscisco was in love with Dagny for years after he decided to end their physical relationships. Does it make them contemptible hypocrites? 

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah. :P There were circumstances involved which made it so that they were better off not trying to have sex with Dagny at the time. They weren't refraining from sex with Dagny because they had something against sex/thought love without sex was somehow inherently better. It's this choice based on a negative view of sex that the quote is about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah. :P There were circumstances involved which made it so that they were better off not trying to have sex with Dagny at the time. They weren't refraining from sex with Dagny because they had something against sex/thought love without sex was somehow inherently better. It's this choice based on a negative view of sex that the quote is about.

Not at all. Where did you find a negative view of sex in this quote? Rand is talking about Platonic love which is not anti but rather asexual. Rand compares platonic love with an idea unexpressed in action and this is a situation in which we find for example Franscisco. When he meets Dagny in the Galt Gulch he confesses to her that he loves her and always will, in spite he knows that she is in love with Galt and he would never be able to consummate his love. Galt from the other hand was in love with Dagny for years without any hope not only to have sex with her but simply meet her. To have a glance on her he had to stalk her. He could die without meeting Dagny. Yet he was deeply in love with her. This is Platonic love. More then that, for Rand love is an emotional response to other person's values. Sexual desire is a result of such a response. There could be many situations in which sexual relations are impossible and love is unexpressed in action, but it still love nevertheless. 

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The love stories in Atlas Shrugged directly mirror the broader plot. Francisco and Galt were on a mission to free producers from their bad premises, and they both repeatedly stated that Dagny was their ultimate "conquest." Maintaining a good relationship with her would have undermined Francisco's goal, and even introducing himself would have done the same for Galt, as we saw when she failed to control herself from visiting his house at the end of the novel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would not having sex mean platonic love in this case? After all, the quote is about two destructive views on sex, not when it's the right choice. The story repeatedly said sex was the wrong choice to make, because that would harm their goals. Part of that was that they couldn't tell Dagny what they were up to, and that was stressful to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . Platonic love which is not anti but rather asexual.

And why do you think they would not have sex with Dagny then when and if circumstances reasonably permitted (which they didn't in the story, but that is assumed to be the case if we're talking about platonic love) if they didn't have anything against mixing sex and love?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would not having sex mean platonic love in this case? After all, the quote is about two destructive views on sex, not when it's the right choice. The story repeatedly said sex was the wrong choice to make, because that would harm their goals. Part of that was that they couldn't tell Dagny what they were up to, and that was stressful to them.

Because Platonic love means asexual love, circumstances notwithstanding. Or in Ayn Rand words, love unexpressed in action. However in AS Ayn Rand shows that such a love is possible and great. Rand-philosopher collides with Rand-artist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And why do you think they would not have sex with Dagny then when and if circumstances reasonably permitted (which they didn't in the story, but that is assumed to be the case if we're talking about platonic love) if they didn't have anything against mixing sex and love?

They did when they could, but when they couldn't they still love her, without a chance to have sex with her.During that time their love was Platonic, unexpressed in action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where exactly are you getting your definition of Platonic Love from? Platonic Love as far as I've seen has always denoted *feelings* of (romantic) love without *feelings* of sexual attraction, something which is treated as an ideal, not just a description of a situation. Originally, the ultimate ends of Platonic Love was to go from loving a person to being inspired to contemplate and love mystical things/beings. So says all the definitions I've seen on Google thus far.

 

Also, remember that everything is a contextual absolute, not a contextless absolute when it comes to morality in Objectivism. It just gets to where writing down all these little caveats about situations where these things won't be applicable to is tedious and not typically needed anyway. With the contextual absolute thing established, from there on out it can be assumed that those sorts of caveats apply even if they aren't written outright.

Edited by bluecherry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blurcherry: The definition is from the Ayn Rand quote. Platonic love is a love which is unexpressed in action. And we are talking here about nothing but context in which love cannot be expressed in action. That what Ayn Rand described in the great details and with a great talent in AS. Yet she considered it as a contemptible hypocrisy. I just ask-how come? If you want a dictionary definition than here it is: "  a close relationship between two persons in which sexual desire is nonexistent or has been suppressed or sublimated" ( Merriam Webster). As you can see it's pretty close to that of Ayn Rand and to the situation described in AS.

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The comma in the original quote is important. Love without sex isn't the only defining criteria of Platonic Love. I don't think it's true either that Galt and/or Francisco had no sexual desire for Dagny or suppressed or sublimated it. The desire was there and aknowledged and not something they tried to kill off in themselves. I also don't see anything that says Rand is talking in the non-fiction quote about contexts in which sex cannot be had. In Atlas Shrugged the situation is one where people cannot, but the non-fiction makes no mention of an impossibility. Also, the earlier part of the quote you posted by Rand mentions ideas not being acted upon in general -- you've got to remember here that "I am romantically and perhaps sexually attracted to that person" is far from the only idea they have which they need to act upon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because Platonic love means asexual love, circumstances notwithstanding. Or in Ayn Rand words, love unexpressed in action. However in AS Ayn Rand shows that such a love is possible and great. Rand-philosopher collides with Rand-artist.

Are you saying that loving someone while you are unable to have sex with them is Platonic love? What counts is desire and an intention to act on that desire if the situation presents itself. Sure, that's not what the quote says, but I'm taking into account everything else she said.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

*** *** Atlas Shrugged Spoiler Alert *** ***

 

Are you saying that loving someone while you are unable to have sex with them is Platonic love? What counts is desire and an intention to act on that desire if the situation presents itself. Sure, that's not what the quote says, but I'm taking into account everything else she said.

Yeah, I've never seen the term "platonic love" used to designate desire that will almost certainly not be consummated: e.g. a high-schooler gawking at a sexy model he will never have.

To love someone and desire them sexually, but to have no hope of ever being their top pick is closer to "unrequited love" than it is to "platonic love".

 

I don't think "unrequited love" describes the AS scenario as related to the three men with whom she actually ends up having sex at some point. I think it only describes Eddie. In his case, Rand gives us evidence that his love for her is not platonic, even though it is unrequited. 

 

For the other three, the love is neither platonic nor unrequited. What it is, is something one has to wait ages to fulfill. In the fictional context, we must assume that Galt and Francisco had realistic hopes that they would get what they desired, just as we must assume that Galt had a realistic hope his strike would succeed.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The comma in the original quote is important. Love without sex isn't the only defining criteria of Platonic Love. I don't think it's true either that Galt and/or Francisco had no sexual desire for Dagny or suppressed or sublimated it. The desire was there and aknowledged and not something they tried to kill off in themselves. I also don't see anything that says Rand is talking in the non-fiction quote about contexts in which sex cannot be had. In Atlas Shrugged the situation is one where people cannot, but the non-fiction makes no mention of an impossibility. Also, the earlier part of the quote you posted by Rand mentions ideas not being acted upon in general -- you've got to remember here that "I am romantically and perhaps sexually attracted to that person" is far from the only idea they have which they need to act upon.

There in fact two definitions. The second one refers to Plato himself who describes love as "as a means of ascent to contemplation of the divine." But the current use of the term which applies to the subject matter simply describes love unexpressed in sex, to which Rand objected. There are myriad different situations in which love cannot be expressed in sex, due to disease for example. The quote doesn't specify the condition of such a situation. Since Galt and Francisco both had strong sexual desire for Dagny but couldn't express their love in sex, their sexual desire has to be suppressed or sublimated.

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying that loving someone while you are unable to have sex with them is Platonic love? What counts is desire and an intention to act on that desire if the situation presents itself. Sure, that's not what the quote says, but I'm taking into account everything else she said.

Not according to Ayn Rand. For her love unexpressed in action is Platonic love which she qualifies as hypocrisy. That why I wonder why she ascribes such a love to her most noble heroes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

*** *** Atlas Shrugged Spoiler Alert *** ***

 

Yeah, I've never seen the term "platonic love" used to designate desire that will almost certainly not be consummated: e.g. a high-schooler gawking at a sexy model he will never have.

To love someone and desire them sexually, but to have no hope of ever being their top pick is closer to "unrequited love" than it is to "platonic love".

 

I don't think "unrequited love" describes the AS scenario as related to the three men with whom she actually ends up having sex at some point. I think it only describes Eddie. In his case, Rand gives us evidence that his love for her is not platonic, even though it is unrequited. 

 

For the other three, the love is neither platonic nor unrequited. What it is, is something one has to wait ages to fulfill. In the fictional context, we must assume that Galt and Francisco had realistic hopes that they would get what they desired, just as we must assume that Galt had a realistic hope his strike would succeed.

 

Dagny had sex with Francisco only for the short period in their youth. Francisco terminated their relationships but was in love with her for the rest of his life, even when he knew she's in love with Galt and he has no chance whatsoever. " Dagny...of course I love you, I always will. I don't care if I'll never have you again, what does it matter? ...His arms swept out to point at the valley..I've always loved you and that I deserted you, that was my love. " This is Platonic love and sublimation of  sexual desire expressed in the most explicit terms. As for Dagny " Francisco, I did love you-" she said...realizing ...that this was not the tense she had wanted to use.". "But you still love me-even if there's one expression of it that you'll always feel and and want, but will never give me any longer...." In another words they both still in love with each other even if they never will express it in sex.  Does that make them hypocrites? I don't think so. Don't understand why Ayn Rand changed her position on this matter. 

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

She didn't change her mind. I think what she wrote in Atlas is some earlier info that further supports what the rest of us have been saying about context being highly relevant to the lack of sex being the immoral sort she meant in the quote or not. Context HAS to matter, it ALWAYS matters in Objectivist ethics. If this romantic love while not having sex thing was always, regardless of context, immoral, you'd get the highly absurd conclusion that any and every moment must be spent having sex with somebody if one loves somebody or else any time they are not doing so, they're being immoral. Clearly, that would not be in the best interest of one's life, the standard which all morals are judge by in Objectivism. We need food and sleep and to produce value to obtain these things and more. Also, Objectivism supports rights, that one is immoral using force to make others do things regardless of what those others think. If context was to be disreguarded then violating people's rights and raping them would have to be endorsed. (Let's not get off on a tangent about the Fountainhead in this particular thread please. There's other threads for that.)

 

I also still disagree on what you think qualifies as suppressing or sublimating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... ... the rest of his life, even when he knew she's in love with Galt and he has no chance whatsoever.

This is simply not true about Francisco. What you are describing is a late development. For the major time-period of the book, we see he is hopeful. Of course if we suspend disbelief and add in the reader's perspective, we know his love is going to be unrequited, and it would be more rational for him to move on... but, if we're discussing the book, then why would we do that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always felt that Francisco erred by sacrificing his relationship with Dagny for the greater cause. He was living by the morality of sacrifice. He should have married Dagny, kept her in his life, and let her into the plot. If she didn't have parallel goals, then she was not the best match for him and he should have found another fish in the sea. Don't give me that "she was not ready" business. His error opened the door for Reardon and Galt (among others). In the end, Francisco had no one to blame but himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing changes the basic principle: the immorality of sacrifice of self - in this case, to a mystical, Platonic (impossible) ideal.

It's what makes for an interesting, academic comparison between her principle and this, the romance in AS - but hardly a contradiction by Rand that I see.

 

Because Rand;s heroes were her "ideal men and women", certainly doesn't preclude them from making (fictional) mistakes.

 

Also, 'Love from afar', is faking/evading reality, when no action is ever taken to establish things, one way or other.

 

Her fiction can be taken too literally, when it comes to acts by her protagonists. Dramatic (or romantic/sexual) tension and poetic license are essential to art.

 

Then - in real life - there is sometimes a fine line between striving for a highest value, and self-sacrifice. Especially when it comes to romantic love, i.e. another person enters the equation. Obviously, the premises of values need constant checking, too.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion seems to turn on a different understanding of Platonic love than the one I have.

In my use, Platonic love is a situation where interest in sex is eliminated from a relationship, being found unworthy, or to somehow "cheapen" the experience of the emotion of love, or something like that.

That does not mean that when one experiences a full romantic love for someone else, including sexual desire, that one must act upon that (i.e. have sex with the object of one's affection), otherwise he is acting immorally. It only means that we do not praise sexless love as an ideal, or seek it out. I believe that Rand is trying to demonstrate the unity of mind and body as expressed through love.

I have a close female friend, and to the extent that I "love" her, I find her sexually attractive. In other circumstances, I would certainly pursue her romantically. But she and I are both married to other people, and I know that to act on my attraction would be the sacrifice of a great many peoples' happiness, not the least of which being my own. Our relationship therefore could be described as "Platonic," in that it has no acted-upon sexual component, but my *affection* for her is not Platonic. She is an attractive woman to me, mind and body, and I respond to her accordingly, mind and body. The fact that I choose to act as I do is not destructive to my life (i.e. immoral), I believe, but is in my rational self-interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Platonic love doesn't necessarily mean elimination of sexual desire. It also could be a sublimation of it. Not only Francisco sacrificed his love to the greater case, but Galt did the same while Dagny was already in the Gulch, spending a sleepless night in his  house, waiting  for him to come to her bedroom. " Let him come...to hell with my railroad and his strike". Of course he never came. For him to express his love to Dagny in sex would be an act of faking reality. However such a reality didn't stop him from loving Dagny sexlessly. So in this context an unexpressed love is not a hypocrisy ? Context is important, but Ayn Rand stated a principle, a concept which should be applicable to any context. In any case nobody could say that Rand didn't walk the talk. When she felt sexual desire toward Nathaniel Branden she expressed it without any sublimation and hesitation. But that already wasn't the same Ayn Rand who penned " Atlas Shrugged".

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion seems to turn on a different understanding of Platonic love than the one I have.

In my use, Platonic love is a situation where interest in sex is eliminated from a relationship, being found unworthy, or to somehow "cheapen" the experience of the emotion of love, or something like that.

That does not mean that when one experiences a full romantic love for someone else, including sexual desire, that one must act upon that (i.e. have sex with the object of one's affection), otherwise he is acting immorally. It only means that we do not praise sexless love as an ideal, or seek it out. I believe that Rand is trying to demonstrate the unity of mind and body as expressed through love.

I have a close female friend, and to the extent that I "love" her, I find her sexually attractive. In other circumstances, I would certainly pursue her romantically. But she and I are both married to other people, and I know that to act on my attraction would be the sacrifice of a great many peoples' happiness, not the least of which being my own. Our relationship therefore could be described as "Platonic," in that it has no acted-upon sexual component, but my *affection* for her is not Platonic. She is an attractive woman to me, mind and body, and I respond to her accordingly, mind and body. The fact that I choose to act as I do is not destructive to my life (i.e. immoral), I believe, but is in my rational self-interest.

My impression of Platonic love is that it evokes the lonely Medieval troubadour singing his songs to the far-off, beautiful, noble lady on the castle wall.

THIS was once the ultimate of love: loving someone who doesn't know you exist - and with not the slightest possibility of actual resolution, never will.

Anything else would be common and dirty by comparison to that false ideal, and by way of fiction, poetry and art, this has entered man's psyche. It still has echoes even today. I'm sure Rand drew from this traditional concept of Platonic love (for the original quote).

So, no, I wouldn't quite say that "interest in sex is eliminated", more like one puts oneself in a deliberate position where sex is never possible, but still desirable - to display one's 'pure and selfless soul'.

To an altruist, the exhibition to others of misery and suffering -sacrifice- is all-important.

You're right about body and mind unity; I'd add that any rupture between them is, as cause and consequence, self-sacrificial.

If consummation is indeed possible with someone, but one chooses not to take that option, I think it relates to one's hierarchy of values. That is, someone else is far more important, their love and one's love for them is highest worth. Of course then, it is paramount that there is no self-conflict or self-repression, so that it never intrudes on one's state of "non-contradictory joy".

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Context is important, but Ayn Rand stated a principle, a concept which should be applicable to any context.

 

Nope, principles, like all concepts, are formed in and applicable to certain (many) contexts, but far from any and all of them.

 

"Concepts are not and cannot be formed in a vacuum; they are formed in a context; . . ."

 

“Definitions,”

Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 42–43

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/context.html

 

"One must never make any decisions, form any convictions or seek any values out of context, i.e., apart from or against the total, integrated sum of one’s knowledge."

 

“The Objectivist Ethics,”

The Virtue of Selfishness, 26

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/context.html

 

v because v

 

"No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge."

 

Galt’s Speech,

For the New Intellectual, 126

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/context.html

 

"A rational man sees his interests in terms of a lifetime and selects his goals accordingly. This does not mean that he has to be omniscient, infallible or clairvoyant. It means that he does not live his life short-range and does not drift like a bum pushed by the spur of the moment. It means that he does not regard any moment as cut off from the context of the rest of his life, and that he allows no conflicts or contradictions between his short-range and long-range interests. He does not become his own destroyer by pursuing a desire today which wipes out all his values tomorrow."

 

“The ‘Conflicts’ of Men’s Interests,”

The Virtue of Selfishness, 51

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/context-dropping.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WhyNot "My impression of Platonic love is that it evokes the lonely Medieval troubadour singing his songs to the far-off, beautiful, noble lady on the castle wall."

 

How do you know that this troubadour didn't repress or sublimated sexual desire?

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
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...