Leonid Posted December 18, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 18, 2013 (edited) 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 The principle or concept is applicable to the context defined by the principle. For example the principle of non-initiation of force applies to any context of human relations. It doesn't apply to relations of humans and animals. The principle I quoted applies to any context in which romantic love involved, doesn't apply to friendship or to the love of ice cream. If concept cannot be integrated without contradictions, then it's not valid. Since Ayn Rand presents in fact two contradictory concepts, one of them has to be wrong. Which one? I think Ayn Rand gave the answer in very explicit form: Love unexpressed in action is contemptibly hypocrisy, and she lived by this principle. Even in AS she hinted, that there wasn't in fact any need for Galt to repress his sexual desire and put Dagny through the emotional and physical torture. He eventually consummated his love to Dagny in the tunnel when Dagny still was a scub, and nothing happened. Skies didn't fall, strike didn't collapse, looters didn't celebrate and good guys won. Edited December 18, 2013 by Leonid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluecherry Posted December 18, 2013 Report Share Posted December 18, 2013 "The principle I quoted applies to any context in which romantic love involved, . . ." Nope. That isn't the only criteria. See, for instance, my earlier post mentioning rape about another such situation where not having sex with somebody one is in love with =/= immoral. 1) I don't think he repressed it 2) initiating a relationship with Dagny while she was still a scab was what lead to Galt having to destroy a bunch of his inventions that he was hiding in the place where he was living outside the valley, got him kidnapped, tortured, and nearly killed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted December 18, 2013 Report Share Posted December 18, 2013 (edited) 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? He may well have done, but that's not what interests me, or has much to do with the conflict you posed. Romantic love without the slightest possibility of consummation corresponds with consciousness without action, right? I could dedicate my life to my love of Charlize Theron, say. A 'love' without a chance of her reciprocated love: which is meaningless, false and "hypocritical". No matter, I could claim - what's important is MY love for her. A 'love' forever untried and untested, which is not love. I suggest that this is ultimately a self-sacrifice, first by existing through an other, unknown person's existence (altruism), and second the sacrifice of body to mind (soul/body split). Surely the point is Galt could and did love and admire from afar, with fair chances of rewarded love (obviously often such things aren't immediately known and gratified)- but if after the two met, he realised it wasn't mutual - well, nothing more to be done and he would of course retire gracefully. Supposition. What otherwise might have been. Which is the trouble with reading an excess amount into the fiction in the first place! Edited December 18, 2013 by whYNOT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonid Posted December 18, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 18, 2013 "The principle I quoted applies to any context in which romantic love involved, . . ." Nope. That isn't the only criteria. See, for instance, my earlier post mentioning rape about another such situation where not having sex with somebody one is in love with =/= immoral. 1) I don't think he repressed it 2) initiating a relationship with Dagny while she was still a scab was what lead to Galt having to destroy a bunch of his inventions that he was hiding in the place where he was living outside the valley, got him kidnapped, tortured, and nearly killed. That wasn't a reason for Galt"s arrest. He was arrested only because Dagny decided to find him, disrespecting his instructions not to try and see him again. And she also did it in such a sloppy way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonid Posted December 18, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 18, 2013 He may well have done, but that's not what interests me, or has much to do with the conflict you posed. Romantic love without the slightest possibility of consummation corresponds with consciousness without action, right? I could dedicate my life to my love of Charlize Theron, say. A 'love' without a chance of her reciprocated love: which is meaningless, false and "hypocritical". No matter, I could claim - what's important is MY love for her. A 'love' forever untried and untested, which is not love. I suggest that this is ultimately a self-sacrifice, first by existing through an other, unknown person's existence (altruism), and second the sacrifice of body to mind (soul/body split). Surely the point is Galt could and did love and admire from afar, with fair chances of rewarded love (obviously often such things aren't immediately known and gratified)- but if after the two met, he realised it wasn't mutual - well, nothing more to be done and he would of course retire gracefully. Supposition. What otherwise might have been. Which is the trouble with reading an excess amount into the fiction in the first place! I think it's more complicated then that. What would happen to the couple who are deeply in love with each other but due to physical circumstances became unable to maintain physical relations? Think about husband or wife who became sick. What they should do-retire gracefully? There are myriad situations like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluecherry Posted December 18, 2013 Report Share Posted December 18, 2013 That wasn't a reason for Galt"s arrest. He was arrested only because Dagny decided to find him, disrespecting his instructions not to try and see him again. And she also did it in such a sloppy way. Pretty sure here that just having done it once and then not trying again would put them in a position like Dagny was in with Francisco, which you are saying should also count as platonic love. Also, I think it's a sort of Pringles, "once you pop, you just can't stop" kind of situation. As difficult as it was for them not to do so in the first place, holding off on doing it again is even harder. If they couldn't hack not doing it in the first place, then they were definitely not going to be able to hack keeping it to just that once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted December 19, 2013 Report Share Posted December 19, 2013 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. The point is, I don't think Francisco or Galt had unexpressed love, they were only in a temporary state where any kind of relationship was a good idea. You also must remember that Rand has some literary license to come up with grand circumstances, as does any writer. There was reasonable expectation that Francisco or Galt could have gone back to Dagny - they both expected her to do the right thing eventually, and that's the "grand" circumstance. Rand writes in a style where, while their way of thinking is attainable by anyone, the heroes are in larger than life situations, like running a strike that'll determine the fate of the world. If the context was something like moving to a new state and probably never intending to visit, in a pre-Internet world, you'd have a point probably, but then you'd have a boring book. If you want to go really big picture, the expressed love is in terms of working towards a better world or life, even if it's not sexual or physical expression for a while. "His error opened the door for Reardon and Galt (among others). In the end, Francisco had no one to blame but himself." - aleph I'm not sure if this is relevant. If it were impossible to rationally love more than one person romantically, Francisco would totally be denying himself. But if you consider that Rand really didn't make monogamy into an important ethical decision in her fiction books, it's fair to say that Francisco at worst just never fell in love with anyone else yet. Your idea is a good one to mention, because I think the ethics of nonmonogamy is important to determining if anyone made a sacrifice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted December 20, 2013 Report Share Posted December 20, 2013 (edited) I think it's more complicated then that. What would happen to the couple who are deeply in love with each other but due to physical circumstances became unable to maintain physical relations? Think about husband or wife who became sick. What they should do-retire gracefully? There are myriad situations like that. Dunno about that. There's a totally one-sided and never-to-be-requited 'Platonic Love' from afar - and there's the circumstantial physical inability for sex between two people in love. "Impossibility" is the only thing in common. But for completely disparate reasons. Edited December 20, 2013 by whYNOT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonid Posted December 20, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 20, 2013 Love from afar is not the only form of Platonic love. According to dictionary and Ayn Rand definitions it's love unexpressed in action when sexual desire is suppresses or sublimated. Such lovers could even live together, as Dagny was living in the Galt's house, just next to him for the whole month, silently begging him to come to her bedroom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonid Posted December 20, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 20, 2013 The point is, I don't think Francisco or Galt had unexpressed love, they were only in a temporary state where any kind of relationship was a good idea. You also must remember that Rand has some literary license to come up with grand circumstances, as does any writer. There was reasonable expectation that Francisco or Galt could have gone back to Dagny - they both expected her to do the right thing eventually, and that's the "grand" circumstance. Rand writes in a style where, while their way of thinking is attainable by anyone, the heroes are in larger than life situations, like running a strike that'll determine the fate of the world. If the context was something like moving to a new state and probably never intending to visit, in a pre-Internet world, you'd have a point probably, but then you'd have a boring book. If you want to go really big picture, the expressed love is in terms of working towards a better world or life, even if it's not sexual or physical expression for a while. "His error opened the door for Reardon and Galt (among others). In the end, Francisco had no one to blame but himself." - aleph I'm not sure if this is relevant. If it were impossible to rationally love more than one person romantically, Francisco would totally be denying himself. But if you consider that Rand really didn't make monogamy into an important ethical decision in her fiction books, it's fair to say that Francisco at worst just never fell in love with anyone else yet. Your idea is a good one to mention, because I think the ethics of nonmonogamy is important to determining if anyone made a sacrifice. It maybe true in regard to Galt, but not to Francisco, since Dagny was in love with Galt and Francisco simply hadn't had any chance. Yet he loved her romantically, according to his own admission. There is not a slighted indication that with years his love faded away. What it is if not love unexpressed in action? Yes, of course Ayn Rand took poetic license and this why Rand a writer collided with Rand a philosopher. Or maybe she made her statement as a conclusion of her own experience. In any case Ayn Rand never allowed unexpressed love in her private life, in spite the price which people who loved her had to pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonid Posted December 20, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 20, 2013 (edited) Pretty sure here that just having done it once and then not trying again would put them in a position like Dagny was in with Francisco, which you are saying should also count as platonic love. Also, I think it's a sort of Pringles, "once you pop, you just can't stop" kind of situation. As difficult as it was for them not to do so in the first place, holding off on doing it again is even harder. If they couldn't hack not doing it in the first place, then they were definitely not going to be able to hack keeping it to just that once. That was Dagny, not Galt who was in Pringles situation. He was used for years to suppress his desire and he explicitly demanded that she will not attempt to see him again. Like any revolutionary ascetic he valued his love less than his struggle. The same applies to Francisco, who did the same but in more cruel way. One can physically feel Dagny's pain when Francisco announced to her that he's going to drop her without any reason whatsoever after they spent night making love. The only explanation which he offered " You are not ready to hear it". Edited December 20, 2013 by Leonid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted December 20, 2013 Report Share Posted December 20, 2013 (edited) Love from afar is not the only form of Platonic love. According to dictionary and Ayn Rand definitions it's love unexpressed in action when sexual desire is suppresses or sublimated. "From afar" is metaphorical - it could be sometimes the thickness of a bedroom wall... "Action" for me, is also intention - something consciously wanted, valued, thought about, and spoken of, or otherwise explicitly shown - not only the sexual "action". Her quotation goes on: "Only the man who extols the purity of a love devoid of desire, is capable of the depravity of a desire devoid of love." "Extols", ( advocates) is important, I think. Similar to altruism, such a pure 'ideal' is divorced from reality and cannot be practised consistently without self-sacrifice. Similar to the altruist-second-hander, the whole point is hardly to practise the 'ideal' he extols - but more to exhibit his 'pure' convictions, to gain status from others. This then, must be the source of Rand's "contemptible hypocrisy" regarding platonic love.. Edited December 20, 2013 by whYNOT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonid Posted December 20, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 20, 2013 (edited) "From afar" is metaphorical - it could be sometimes the thickness of a bedroom wall... "Action" for me, is also intention - something consciously wanted, valued, thought about, and spoken of, or otherwise explicitly shown - not only the sexual "action". Her quotation goes on: "Only the man who extols the purity of a love devoid of desire, is capable of the depravity of a desire devoid of love." "Extols", ( advocates) is important, I think. Similar to altruism, such a pure 'ideal' is divorced from reality and cannot be practised consistently without self-sacrifice. Similar to the altruist-second-hander, the whole point is hardly to practise the 'ideal' he extols - but more to exhibit his 'pure' convictions, to gain status from others. This then, must be the source of Rand's "contemptible hypocrisy" regarding platonic love.. Oh I see. You just used to talk about knight or troubadour and fair princess in the castle far away. Of course love could be expressed in many different ways, like taking care on the loved one etc...However it wouldn't be different in the case of love toward family members or friends. But sex is an ultimate expression of romantic love. "Just as an idea unexpressed in physical action is contemptible hypocrisy, so is platonic love" Observe that here Ayn Rand is talking about physical action. Which physical action would specifically express romantic love if not sex? Edited December 20, 2013 by Leonid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluecherry Posted December 20, 2013 Report Share Posted December 20, 2013 Why do you continue to disregard everything else Rand said in favor of interpreting this one sentence she wrote as if it was unrelated to everything else? She doesn't mention in just that single sentence contextual things like temorarily putting things off for some reason or not raping anybody, but she also didn't mention in that one sentence specifically things like it only having to do with humans, though you have said that this was a part of the context already. The sentence quoted is assuming that there is nothing else *aside* from ideological poo-pooing of sex with somebody one loves which keeps one from going ahead and having sex with somebody, that that alone is the determining factor. Why is this the assumed context? Because the topic being addressed is acting according to what you know to be true - EVERYTHING you know to be true, not just that you do or do not have an attraction to somebody - not weighing sex versus revolutions or whatever else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 It maybe true in regard to Galt, but not to Francisco, since Dagny was in love with Galt and Francisco simply hadn't had any chance. Yet he loved her romantically, according to his own admission. There is not a slighted indication that with years his love faded away. What it is if not love unexpressed in action? But, I did say there are other ways to express love besides sex. There was definitely expression of love appropriate for unreciprocated feelings, especially by Francisco when he planned all that mining in the gulch. I forget the scene, but wasn't the copper mine in the gulch in appreciation of Dagny, as well as his own self-esteem? If we want to talk about platonic love, there is literally no action - it's all mental, hence platonic. The literary license I'm talking about is putting people in situations where it is actually possible to make grand actions into expressions. It's not a "typical" situation, so the context is different than say, the standard romantic comedy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonid Posted December 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 (edited) Why do you continue to disregard everything else Rand said in favor of interpreting this one sentence she wrote as if it was unrelated to everything else? She doesn't mention in just that single sentence contextual things like temorarily putting things off for some reason or not raping anybody, but she also didn't mention in that one sentence specifically things like it only having to do with humans, though you have said that this was a part of the context already. The sentence quoted is assuming that there is nothing else *aside* from ideological poo-pooing of sex with somebody one loves which keeps one from going ahead and having sex with somebody, that that alone is the determining factor. Why is this the assumed context? Because the topic being addressed is acting according to what you know to be true - EVERYTHING you know to be true, not just that you do or do not have an attraction to somebody - not weighing sex versus revolutions or whatever else. Because Ayn Rand didn't refer to love in particular. She referred to an idea unexpressed in physical action in general, and this is a very broad context. This one sentence is a high degree abstraction and says volumes about connection of mind and body. She used Platonic love as one of many examples of mind-body dichotomy which she considered as a cardinal philosophical sin. This is a real context and this is why it's strange that both Galt and Francisco act against this principle. Even Rearden did it for a while, but in his case his error had been properly exposed, explained and corrected. Edited December 21, 2013 by Leonid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonid Posted December 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 (edited) Eiuol "But, I did say there are other ways to express love besides sex." -I already answered that. I remind you that Ayn Rand is talking here about physical action. There are many actions which can express love, but only one which is specifically expresses romantic sexual love and this is of course sex. Any other action which comes to substitute it would be worse then hypocrisy. "Man is an end in himself. Romantic love—the profound, exalted, lifelong passion that unites his mind and body in the sexual act—is the living testimony to that principle." (Of Living Death,”The Voice of Reason, 55–56) Edited December 21, 2013 by Leonid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluecherry Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 Because Ayn Rand didn't refer to love in particular. She referred to an idea unexpressed in physical action in general, and this is a very broad context. This one sentence is a high degree abstraction and says volumes about connection of mind and body. She used Platonic love as one of many examples of mind-body dichotomy which she considered as a cardinal philosophical sin. This is a real context . . . Up until here I'm completely with you. I don't see how you went from this to "so, when it comes to love and sex, I'm then NOT going to take anything else at all into consideration. Rest of my life and the conditions around me be damned!" Other ideas one also can and should act on: Rights - no raping, k? People need to eat - there is a time and a place for things, and all the time, everywhere is not it for sex. Producing as one major value - other people aren't obligated to bring you food and such and it won't magically appear, so you need to take time out to do that too. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Maybe if I amend this earlier sentence what I mean will be clearer? "The sentence quoted, when it refers to platonic love in particular, is assuming that there is nothing else *aside* from ideological poo-pooing of sex with somebody one loves which keeps one from going ahead and having sex with somebody, that that alone is the determining factor." As one example in discussion of the more general principle of acting on what one knows to be true, Platonic love being wrong does not mean you do not act on all the other things you know to be true. It's not an issue of sex versus the rest of one's life, pick one and disregard the other. Attraction to somebody is but one (albeit large) fact among a zillion that one needs to act on. ALL facts need to be taken into consideration all the time, they ALL need to be acted on. Platonic love is wrong because it advocates *never* acting on one particular type of fact *under any circumstances at all*. Look, this stuff may be getting semantic by now. If you are going to insist that any time at all somebody has love for somebody without sex with them that that counts as Platonic Love, then just file this one under poor word choice and let's be done with it, ok? The intended meaning was that complete opposition to sex with somebody one loves is a messed up ideological view because it treats idea and action, mind and body, as if they do not and should not ever have anything to do with one another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonid Posted December 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 (edited) We need to define our terms. First, we don't discuss rape, lust, or even amorous affair. We are talking about romantic love, that is " the highest passion for the highest value". Remember that value is that what one has to act in order to gain and/or keep. Action is a key word. Ayn Rand regarded Platonic love, that is-the love, unexpressed in physical action as a kind of mind-body dichotomy., which by itself is very Platonic concept. If one decided to forfeit his love relationships as Francisco did, that leave us with two possibilities: or his love is not a passion for the highest value, and he has some higher value to pursue, like his struggle for example. Or he commits a sacrifice, by exchange of his highest value, Dagny to the lesser value, his struggle. In the former case, the whole love story of the novel is collapsing, in the latter-Francisco acts against his own principles and in fact undermines his struggle. But if Francisco's actions could be at least rationalized, the abstinence of Galt just on the grounds that Dagny is a scab cannot be justified in any way. Just think for a moment about that- the fact that Dagny is a scab didn't prevent Galt to fall in love with her and to deeply love her for years, but prevented him from having sex with her. This is an epitome of mind-body dichotomy. I repeat the quote I posted above "Man is an end in himself. Romantic love—the profound, exalted, lifelong passion that unites his mind and body in the sexual act—is the living testimony to that principle." (Of Living Death,”The Voice of Reason, 55–56). If this is true, then both Francisco and Galt failed to provide this testimony. Edited December 21, 2013 by Leonid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluecherry Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 (edited) "First, we don't discuss rape . . . We are talking about romantic love, that is ' the highest passion for the highest value'." The keep bringing up rape because of unrequited love. Do you regard such a thing as impossible, to really love somebody who does not love you back? Regardless of what you contend Platonic love means and that such a definition you hold could apply to some characters in AS, that is not what Rand intended to refer to when she wrote that one line. This is like when people try to tell us that capitalism and selfishness are wrong because they violate rights and disregard all immaterial values and say we're contradicting ourselves by claiming to support capitalism, selfishness, AND rights and friendship and that sort of stuff, insisting this is so no matter how much we try to explain that we do not endorse rights violations and so on, that we did not mean to say we did support it when we said we supported capitalism and selfishness. Edited December 21, 2013 by bluecherry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 (edited) "Physical action", in romantic love, is an outward demonstration of one's intent and value for a person, leading up to sexual action and beyond. Attention to a woman, facial expressions, spoken and written words, touch, embrace and so on. But it takes two to tango. Not every romantic lover finds mutuality in his quest. I doubt very much that Rand would have adjudged as "contemptible hypocrisy" someone who made all his intentions clear this way, but was rebuffed or treated non-seriously by the woman. So THESE actions are obviously what Rand meant, otherwise we should assume that a person's one-sided love is sufficient to guarantee sexual consummation - every time. Which is crazy. To reiterate, 'action' in romantic love is a *process* of many actions, prior to and including the sexual act. Rand evidently contrasts these physical actions (towards romantic love) with the Platonic lover who's premises are mystical and self-sacrificial, elevating 'purity of spirit' over the disgusting body, and who will take not one action, ever, to further advance his so-called 'love': That would defeat his motive of purity, entirely. We should bear in mind that he views her, also, as too pure for sex, not only himself. This is central to much literature of the Middle Ages and survives today in many subtle forms. Rand didn't define Platonic love that I can see because after all, there is a well-established classical definition ("purely spiritual love") - rather, as she often did with concepts, she revealed its premises and its consequences . Edited December 21, 2013 by whYNOT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonid Posted December 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 (edited) "First, we don't discuss rape . . . We are talking about romantic love, that is ' the highest passion for the highest value'." The keep bringing up rape because of unrequited love. Do you regard such a thing as impossible, to really love somebody who does not love you back? Regardless of what you contend Platonic love means and that such a definition you hold could apply to some characters in AS, that is not what Rand intended to refer to when she wrote that one line. This is like when people try to tell us that capitalism and selfishness are wrong because they violate rights and disregard all immaterial values and say we're contradicting ourselves by claiming to support capitalism, selfishness, AND rights and friendship and that sort of stuff, insisting this is so no matter how much we try to explain that we do not endorse rights violations and so on, that we did not mean to say we did support it when we said we supported capitalism and selfishness. Rape is a terrible violation of physical and mental integrity and has nothing to do with love. So I don't understand why you are keeping to bring it up. It's not a union of mind and body but just a violent sexual action. It is simply another form of mind-body dichotomy when the mind is utterly ignored. Unrequited love is possible but useless. Love is a trade in spiritual values.One can date a person till he has enough evidence that such a person has no intention whatsoever to engage in a trade. As for Rand's intentions, she wrote this line long after she finished AS. Apparently her views on romantic love changed. As a philosopher she developed explicit view on sex. But as a writer she was influenced by classical Russian literature in which the unrequited love plays a very significant role. Hence a collision. You analogy with capitalism is irrelevant, has no connection to the subject matter. Edited December 21, 2013 by Leonid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonid Posted December 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 (edited) "Physical action", in romantic love, is an outward demonstration of one's intent and value for a person, leading up to sexual action and beyond. Attention to a woman, facial expressions, spoken and written words, touch, embrace and so on. But it takes two to tango. Not every romantic lover finds mutuality in his quest. I doubt very much that Rand would have adjudged as "contemptible hypocrisy" someone who made all his intentions clear this way, but was rebuffed or treated non-seriously by the woman. So THESE actions are obviously what Rand meant, otherwise we should assume that a person's one-sided love is sufficient to guarantee sexual consummation - every time. Which is crazy. To reiterate, 'action' in romantic love is a *process* of many actions, prior to and including the sexual act. Rand evidently contrasts these physical actions (towards romantic love) with the Platonic lover who's premises are mystical and self-sacrificial, elevating 'purity of spirit' over the disgusting body, and who will take not one action, ever, to further advance his so-called 'love': That would defeat his motive of purity, entirely. We should bear in mind that he views her, also, as too pure for sex, not only himself. This is central to much literature of the Middle Ages and survives today in many subtle forms. Rand didn't define Platonic love that I can see because after all, there is a well-established classical definition ("purely spiritual love") - rather, as she often did with concepts, she revealed its premises and its consequences . Intention is not an action. Facial expression, words, touch, embrace and even kiss are not specific actions of romantic love. They could be part of any friendly relationships or expression of non-romantic love. Love, even non-romantic is a exchange of values, a trade. Romantic love, as Rand observed is a profound, exalted, lifelong passion that unites mind and body in the sexual act. So unrequited love is in a sense an oxymoron.Rand wouldn't describe an intention as "contemptible hypocrisy" as long as person recognizes his position as rejected lover and lets it go. However, love doesn't have always to be romantic. Such a person could maintain a friendly, close relationships without to be romantically involved. In such a case all the actions you described above are appropriate. The same applies to the lovers who due to different circumstances couldn't maintain romantic relationships. Edited December 21, 2013 by Leonid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluecherry Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 Rape is a terrible violation of physical and mental integrity and has nothing to do with love. So I don't understand why you are keeping to bring it up. It's not a union of mind and body but just a violent sexual action. It is simply another form of mind-body dichotomy when the mind is utterly ignored. Unrequited love is possible but useless. Love is a trade in spiritual values.One can date a person till he has enough evidence that such a person has no intention whatsoever to engage in a trade. As for Rand's intentions, she wrote this line long after she finished AS. Apparently her views on romantic love changed. As a philosopher she developed explicit view on sex. But as a writer she was influenced by classical Russian literature in which the unrequited love plays a very significant role. Hence a collision. You analogy with capitalism is irrelevant, has no connection to the subject matter. So, unrequited love is possible. Does this mean in the case of unrequited love that the one in love should force the other to have sex with them? If no, then you aknowledge more context being relevant to the sex and Platonic love thing than the ones you aknowledged earlier. I'd like to know why you believe somebody else rejecting you and their right against you forcing things on them is relevant context, enough to justify not having sex with somebody, yet other people forcing things on you and that other person, to the point that your lives become almost impossible, cannot be relevant context enough to justify not having sex with somebody. Just because a large chunk of time has passed doesn't necessarily mean somebody changed their minds. Rand spent a very long time working on Galt's speech, something which is often quoted in her non-fiction. I don't think just because something was in a novel that she necessarily gave it no serious philosophic thought. Wasn't it said some place that after Atlas she got into writing non-fiction to elaborate upon and make further explicit the things she already wrote Atlas based upon? The point of the analogy wasn't to talk about capitalism as compared with sexual issues, it was an analogy about the way this discussion is functioning. The two discussions suffer a very similar problem of insisting on interpreting some word one particular way no matter what else one may hear or even if told to just never mind that one word and substitute the intended meaning instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonid Posted December 22, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 22, 2013 (edited) So, unrequited love is possible. Does this mean in the case of unrequited love that the one in love should force the other to have sex with them? If no, then you aknowledge more context being relevant to the sex and Platonic love thing than the ones you aknowledged earlier. I'd like to know why you believe somebody else rejecting you and their right against you forcing things on them is relevant context, enough to justify not having sex with somebody, yet other people forcing things on you and that other person, to the point that your lives become almost impossible, cannot be relevant context enough to justify not having sex with somebody. Just because a large chunk of time has passed doesn't necessarily mean somebody changed their minds. Rand spent a very long time working on Galt's speech, something which is often quoted in her non-fiction. I don't think just because something was in a novel that she necessarily gave it no serious philosophic thought. Wasn't it said some place that after Atlas she got into writing non-fiction to elaborate upon and make further explicit the things she already wrote Atlas based upon? The point of the analogy wasn't to talk about capitalism as compared with sexual issues, it was an analogy about the way this discussion is functioning. The two discussions suffer a very similar problem of insisting on interpreting some word one particular way no matter what else one may hear or even if told to just never mind that one word and substitute the intended meaning instead. I already mentioned that if love is a highest passion for the highest value, it requires action. In this sense unrequited love is not love at all. There no active interaction, no exchange of values. Rape as Platonic love is a rupture between mind and body and by no means could be considered as an act of love. The difference between love and rape is a difference between a trader and a robber. The difference between romantic lover and rejected lover is a difference between a creator and street beggar, You invoke unrelated categories. Yes, there are situations when sex is temporary impossible, due to disease for example. But this is an exclusion, not a rule. And temporary situation cannot last for decades. Moreover, in case of Francisco, the situation is permanent, and not because the strike, but because Dagny fell for Galt. Yet he proclaims that he loves and always will love her. What he's going to do then? Become a monk? And if situation is as such that life became almost impossible, then there is no place for love at all. Love is celebration of life, not death. Edited December 22, 2013 by Leonid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.