Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Love in AS

Rate this topic


Leonid

Recommended Posts

What if the unrequited love does involve a lot of interaction and exchanges of values with the other person though?

 

Why do you say a temporary condition cannot last for decades?

 

As for Francisco, 1) feelings can't be directly controled. If somebody has all these values and sense of life you highly prize, you can't just decide, "nope! Not gonna be attracted to you anymore." I don't know what you think he should do or what. 2) Obviously, a monk is out of the question as monks are religious 3) He may not be able to be with Dagny, but he can still be with somebody else if he finds somebody else who he loves as much as he loves Dagny and that other person feels the same for him.

 

If this was, say, barely surviving on an inhospitable island with no idea if you'll ever get home, then yes, I think the situation would be too immediately severe and taking up all your thoughts for any thoughts of romance. Starvation alone is enough to drive somebody to the point that they're thinking and emotions get all kinds of screwy. However, I'm talking about Atlas Shrugged. Things are really bad there and getting worse all the time, requiring more and more struggle to work around and sneak breaks of mounting piles of laws, but not yet to the point of physical suffering setting in (until when Galt gets kidnapped anyway). So, the situation requires immediate action, but it isn't to the point yet where I think one would be unable to think of romance. They need to act right away to keep the situation from devolving to the point where they are in a situation as desperate as the island situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"What if the unrequited love does involve a lot of interaction and exchanges of values with the other person though?" Yes , it may, but this interaction is unrelated to that of romantic love. 

 

"Why do you say a temporary condition cannot last for decades?"  because "temporary" means "lasting only a short time; transitory"

 

"As for Francisco, 1) feelings can't be directly controled. If somebody has all these values and sense of life you highly prize, you can't just decide, "nope! Not gonna be attracted to you anymore." I don't know what you think he should do or what. 2) Obviously, a monk is out of the question as monks are religious 3) He may not be able to be with Dagny, but he can still be with somebody else if he finds somebody else who he loves as much as he loves Dagny and that other person feels the same for him." 

 

Emotions are not controlled directly but could be controlled by changing mind set. In Objectivism emotions are not primary but derived from the premises and concepts internalized by subconsciousness.  Not all monks are religious, some of them actually went to the monastery exactly because unrequited love. But I of course suggested it as a joke. In your scenario it would mean that Francisco will fall out of love with Dagny. 

 

"If this was, say, barely surviving on an inhospitable island with no idea if you'll ever get home, then yes, I think the situation would be too immediately severe and taking up all your thoughts for any thoughts of romance. Starvation alone is enough to drive somebody to the point that they're thinking and emotions get all kinds of screwy. However, I'm talking about Atlas Shrugged. Things are really bad there and getting worse all the time, requiring more and more struggle to work around and sneak breaks of mounting piles of laws, but not yet to the point of physical suffering setting in (until when Galt gets kidnapped anyway). So, the situation requires immediate action, but it isn't to the point yet where I think one would be unable to think of romance. They need to act right away to keep the situation from devolving to the point where they are in a situation as desperate as the island situation. "

 

If conditions weren't that bad what stopped our protagonists to enjoy the full romantic relationships?   The rule of looters didn't stop Dagny and Rearden to do just that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Yes , it may, but this interaction is unrelated to that of romantic love."

How is this relevant exactly to the nature of what one person feels in regard to another?

 

"because 'temporary' means 'lasting only a short time; transitory'"

Every definition I've seen for that word doesn't say it has to be a short time, in fact, I haven't found one yet that mentions it being brief. What it does say is just that it isn't permanent. That said, regardless of what we're calling such time periods, why do you contend that it must be brief? Yes, I know these things are the minority of cases, not the majority, but they still happen so it is still worth addressing, particularly since you seem to be arguing that Rand later in life determined that no such cases are possible/moral.

 

"Emotions are not controlled directly but could be controlled by changing mind set. In Objectivism emotions are not primary but derived from the premises and concepts internalized by subconsciousness."

I'm aware of this. What I'm looking for is how you think this mindset should be changed and changed to what exactly? What isn't up for changing is the essential nature of the person that one fell in love with though. Just telling yourself to stop loving somebody because you've been turned down by them and it doesn't look like that's about to change and loving them is causing you pain isn't a great way to change one's feelings. That's not effective since the nature of you and the nature of that other person is still the same, that person still is all these things you treasure, thus the way they relate to your values hierarchy and sense of life is still the same and that's the reality of things. It's about as helpful to tell yourself to stop loving somebody because it's hurting you as it is to tell yourself that because it is just hurting you, you should instead go on as if a rock wasn't crushing your arm when in fact it was.

 

"If conditions weren't that bad what stopped our protagonists to enjoy the full romantic relationships?   The rule of looters didn't stop Dagny and Rearden to do just that."

Exactly what did end up happening: people caught Galt because they were watching Dagny. Had it not been so late in the game already, this could have seriously thwarted the efforts of the strike, not to mention any potential physical harm or even death that might have happened if an angry general public knew where these industrialists were after they shut down/left their businesses suddenly. Also, there's the risk of Dagny trying to undermine their efforts, more so then should could do if she was ignorant of the strike and who was involved. Hank could go ahead and do so with Dagny because he wasn't part of the strike at the time. Worst case for him if he got caught at that time was some scandal about him cheating on Lillian. In the current situation, something like that was not even about to actually get anybody to stop doing business with Reardan. It did end up getting Hank blackmailed into turning over the rights to his new metal though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"How is this relevant exactly to the nature of what one person feels in regard to another?"

 

Feelings are not relevant to anything. It's a first person experience. If you feel say toothache how it's relevant to me? I could be sympathetic to your suffering and advice you to see a dentist. But I cannot feel your pain. Feeling is not an action and feeling alone cannot be a solid foundation of romantic love. It requires an action. In Ayn Rand words "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)

 

"Every definition I've seen for that word doesn't say it has to be a short time"

 

"temporary [ˈtɛmpərərɪ ˈtɛmprərɪ]

adj
1. not permanent; provisional temporary accommodation
2. lasting only a short time; transitory temporary relief from pain

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/temporary

 

"What I'm looking for is how you think this mindset should be changed and changed to what exactly?"

 

The rational person would understand that he doesn't possesses the values of his rival and therefore cannot compete with him. In spite all the pain and frustration he would withdraw. Francisco who forfeited his love for sake of his struggle nevertheless failed to do just that and that was a cause of his fight with Rearden. Now by withdrawal   I don't mean complete disappearance or termination of all relations. There is a place for non-romantic, that is-non-sexual relations. 

 

"Exactly what did end up happening: people caught Galt because they were watching Dagny."

 

What that has to do with relations between Dagny and Rearden?  And I don't agree that Dagny and Galt short love making in the tunnel was a reason for Galt's arrest. Dagny would be looking for Galt in any case after she saw him at terminal, even if they weren't consummate their love. She was madly in love and didn't have to repress it. As for the gift certificate, that was solely Rearden's fault. And Ayn Rand goes on the long and detailed explanation how Rearden's failure to acknowledge the source of his love to Dagny, his variant of mind-body dichotomy ended up in forfeiting the most important thing in his life. 

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Feeling is not an action and feeling alone cannot be a solid foundation of romantic love. It requires an action."

Romantic love *is* a feeling. Now, a feeling is founded on something else though, yes. But the foundation is based upon who you are and your assment of who this other person is. You don't need romanticly oriented actions for that. I don't see what the toothache thing has to do with this. I don't get it as a analogy or a demonstration of an idea applicable to both situations here.

 

"1. not permanent; provisional temporary accommodation"

So, it still doesn't need to be brief to be temporary.

"That said, regardless of what we're calling such time periods, why do you contend that it must be brief [in order to be moral/possible even maybe]? Yes, I know these things are the minority of cases, not the majority, but they still happen so it is still worth addressing, particularly since you seem to be arguing that Rand later in life determined that no such cases are possible/moral." <-- This one still isn't answered.

 

Ceasing attempts to win over the person one loves, yes, understood. (However, I do think that had it just been between Francisco and Reardan when the strike was resolved, it isn't clear which of the two of them would have won. I don't think it was unreasonable for Francisco to have thought he still had a good chance. He did give up on that pretty shortly after he found out about Dagny and Hank though, and again when Dagny picked Galt over him in the end.) That doesn't mean one's feelings about the other person change though. So, what then?

 

"What that has to do with relations between Dagny and Rearden?"

Reardan at that time wasn't in the strike. So, Reardan didn't have the things that made Francisco and Galt hold off. That's why he could go ahead and have a relationship with Dagny while Francisco and Galt couldn't.

 

Mt only point with the metal was that Reardan did have some things at stake for whatever reasons, good reasons or bad, mistaken ones, but even from his point of view at the time, those things still weren't as big of stakes as what the people in the strike were dealing with.

 

The tunnel thing was mainly just an issue of Dagny being the weak link of the two of them. Galt could hold off and not try again, but not so with Dagny. She had definite reason to try to find him again later still had they not done so, yes, but I think this was kind of the thing that sealed the deal. And besides, had they only done so that once and not again, that still puts them in the same position as Francisco, who had a relationship and sex with Dagny before, but then no more because he joined the strike. You've said, If I recall correctly, that this was wrong of Francisco to stop his relationship and sex with Dagny, so then wouldn't Galt be wrong still too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Romantic love *is* a feeling"-it's much more than just feeling .According to Ayn Rand it is a passion that unites  mind and body in the sexual act. Toothache demonstrates that your feelings are only yours and have nothing to do with the other person. Only action can connect, not just feelings. Suppose you feel love to somebody, but you know it's hopeless and you even never told to that person or to anybody else about your feelings. Does it make romantic relationships? Not in Ayn Rand's sense.

 

"temporary"-the first definition doesn't define time, it simply says that temporary is not permanent. the second, more defining says it's a short period. 

 

Francisco maybe had a good chance against Rearden but not against Galt. So he lost his case anyway.

 

"Reardan at that time wasn't in the strike"-in other words he didn't have to repress his love as strikers did. True

 

"those things still weren't as big of stakes as what the people in the strike were dealing with." From the Rearden's point of view they were. They were in fact all his life.

 

"The tunnel thing"- is a literally license. I already mentioned, that Dagny would look for Galt anyway. And I'm pretty sure that Dagny, been very smart woman could find him without to get him arrested. But that would destroy the plot and the climax of the story. Don't forget we are discussing here the work of fiction. And you are quite right. Galt was wrong too. He was wrong in the Galt Gulch as well when he  submitted Dagny to the physical and emotional torture. Re-read this scene and you can also feel her pain. it's a master piece.

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I'd like to check here. Are we still talking about what Ayn was saying in that quote in the first post or are we talking only or at least primarily about what you contend is morally correct here?

 

"it's much more than just feeling .According to Ayn Rand it is a passion that unites  mind and body in the sexual act."

Passion = feeling. It's the feeling that motivates somebody to have sex with somebody else (and rightly so), but it's still a feeling.

 

"the first definition doesn't define time, it simply says that temporary is not permanent."

Yeah, exactly.

 

"So he lost his case anyway."

Yeah, however, what you said was this:

"The rational person would understand that he doesn't possesses the values of his rival and therefore cannot compete with him. In spite all the pain and frustration he would withdraw. Francisco who forfeited his love for sake of his struggle nevertheless failed to do just that and that was a cause of his fight with Rearden."

I'm saying he didn't fail, he did stop trying to pursue Dagny romantically once it was evident that he wasn't going to get her.

 

"From the Rearden's point of view they were. They were in fact all his life."

The stakes were very high for him, yes. Still not as high though as risking being killed.

 

Are we arguing over if what some fictional characters did in a work of fiction was moral or not based upon speculation of what may or may not have happened in real life? For the sake of the topic of this discussion, let's just suppose that we could be sure that the risk of what happened actually coming to pass was indeed high. What then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I'd like to check here. Are we still talking about what Ayn was saying in that quote in the first post or are we talking only or at least primarily about what you contend is morally correct here?

 

"it's much more than just feeling .According to Ayn Rand it is a passion that unites  mind and body in the sexual act."

Passion = feeling. It's the feeling that motivates somebody to have sex with somebody else (and rightly so), but it's still a feeling.

 

"the first definition doesn't define time, it simply says that temporary is not permanent."

Yeah, exactly.

 

"So he lost his case anyway."

Yeah, however, what you said was this:

"The rational person would understand that he doesn't possesses the values of his rival and therefore cannot compete with him. In spite all the pain and frustration he would withdraw. Francisco who forfeited his love for sake of his struggle nevertheless failed to do just that and that was a cause of his fight with Rearden."

I'm saying he didn't fail, he did stop trying to pursue Dagny romantically once it was evident that he wasn't going to get her.

 

"From the Rearden's point of view they were. They were in fact all his life."

The stakes were very high for him, yes. Still not as high though as risking being killed.

 

Are we arguing over if what some fictional characters did in a work of fiction was moral or not based upon speculation of what may or may not have happened in real life? For the sake of the topic of this discussion, let's just suppose that we could be sure that the risk of what happened actually coming to pass was indeed high. What then?

Basically the reason I started this thread is that I was puzzled by the obvious discrepancy between Ayn Rand's statement which I quoted and love story in AS. My understanding is that Ayn Rand changed her position on romantic love or simply ignored it while writing AS for sake of the story. She took literally license. Passion of course is a feeling but romantic love is an action driven by such a feeling. At least according to Ayn Rand without romantic action, that is-sex,  such a feeling is meaningless and even worse, a contemptible hypocrisy, a mind-body dichotomy. Only sex ,as she observed, is an act which can unite mind and body and give an expression to the romantic passion. If you disagree, you have a quarrel not with me but with Ayn Rand. I myself wholly support this idea. That why I don't understand Francisco who professed his love over decade and even after that he understood he has no chance.  According to Rand definition it is not love, just a passion unexpressed in action, mind-body dichotomy per excellence. The same could be said about Galt, whose passion for Dagny went unexpressed for many years. Call it temporary if you wish, but for me 10 years is quite a permanent state.  It is true that we are dealing here with a piece of fiction, but it's a romantic fiction, a description of life as it could and should be. Since Ayn Rand set the bar that high, she shouldn't have allowed any collisions between her philosophy and her literature.  Now who gave you an idea that looters wanted to kill Galt? They wanted him to be an economical dictator, they saw in him their last chance to survive. In any case Rearden was the only one who forfeited the most precious thing he ever had-his metal. And if Francisco and Galt could give up Dagny for sake of the strike, then strike was their highest passion for the highest values, not Dagny.

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

". . . romantic love is an action . . ."

Nope. It's one species of passion.

 

"At least according to Ayn Rand without romantic action [when reasonably possible], that is-sex,  such a feeling is meaningless and even worse, a contemptible hypocrisy, a mind-body dichotomy."

 

"Call it temporary if you wish, but for me 10 years is quite a permanent state."

10 years =/= forever

 

"Now who gave you an idea that looters wanted to kill Galt? They wanted him to be an economical dictator,"

Eventually, yeah. Earlier on though before the speech they probably would have lynched first and asked questions later. Also, they did come close to killing Galt when he was kidnapped. They pretty much didn't care to let him live if he wouldn't give them what they wanted.

 

I contend that they didn't give Dagny up for the strike - it wasn't intended to be permanant, just until the strike was over OR until she joined them. Additionally, the strike was something they were doing which would benefit her too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically the reason I started this thread is that I was puzzled by the obvious discrepancy between Ayn Rand's statement which I quoted and love story in AS. My understanding is that Ayn Rand changed her position on romantic love or simply ignored it while writing AS for sake of the story. She took literally license.

 

I agree. A decade is too much of one's life to spend celibate for one woman, or even for one's cause. The cognitive dissonance is too great for this to be anything but literary license.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Don't know what forever means, but ten years is a bit too long to be called a temporary situation. Imagine that you have a temporary power failure for ten years. Besides, AS protagonists didn't read AS to the end. They didn't know how long their strike will last. It could fail as well. For them it was forever. 

 

". . romantic love is an action . . ."Nope. It's one species of passion."  So you disagree with Rand. Your right. 

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. A decade is too much of one's life to spend celibate for one woman, or even for one's cause. The cognitive dissonance is too great for this to be anything but literary license.

That's quite an assumption  about Francisco, because all we know is that Francisco was in love with Dagny. I think it's reasonable to believe that he never really fell in love with anyone else, or it's possible to speculate that he may have seen other people. There is no way to say if he was really celebate those 10 years. As far as the story is concerned, he just didn't have sex with Dagny. 10 years is indeed long, but it's no reason to stop loving anyone. Being in love does not imply emotional exclusivity or even sexual exclusivity. More importantly, Francisco did take action to an appropriate extent. Sure, that might not be a reciprocated romantic love, but the original quote of the OP is about actionless love, not about anyone failing to have a sexual relationship with someone that they love.

Leonid, I really don't know how specifically romantic relationships got into the picture, or how sex is the only way to express love. To have a romantic relationship, yes, but it doesn't follow that feeling love can only ever properly be expressed with sex. "Just as an idea unexpressed in physical action is contemptible hypocrisy, so is platonic love". It only says physical action - don't you think of Rand meant to say sex, she would have said so? Taking into account the whole book, there are many instances of expressing love without sex, in the same way there are many instances of expressing love with sex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, there's a recollection here of the thread, Roark the Dynamiter, in over-conflating Rand the artist and Rand the philosopher. Yes, they are one and the same, but the artist was primary. "I had to do it" she wrote in FTNI, about her need to create a philosophy.

To try to give her the full recognition she deserves, it's extraordinary that one person could seamlessly integrate the two spheres. Her conceptual scope and depth was evidently unique, and for that reason I believe an Objectivist ought to be most selective how he himself integrates the two.

Certainly her characters were her "ideal men and women" - but - according to the art-form of Romantic realism (Romanticism) - her "ideal" men are not 'perfect'. And then life (the plot) would throw up problems, there'd be dramatic tension, thwarted romance, love triangles etc. - and the characters will make errors of judgment. However, rationality and morality must triumph in the end. A representation of reality - in short.

And sure, her art was in many ways a vehicle for her philosophy; but as a great writer would, nearly always by implication (with an exception of Galt's Speech).

The literalism in the Fountainhead thread came about by Roark destroying his building (ha, or was it his? what right did he have??), read by some to be contradictory to Rand's advocacy of individual rights! I think that's a simplistic approach to literature.

While this one - about Rand's direct statement on Platonic love, versus the long-delayed sex in Atlas- is a far more reasonable topic, I continue to claim that deducing Objectivist doctrine from her art should be handled with care and can be done in excess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eiuol

"To have a romantic relationship, yes, but it doesn't follow that feeling love can only ever properly be expressed with sex. "Just as an idea unexpressed in physical action is contemptible hypocrisy, so is platonic love". It only says physical action - don't you think of Rand meant to say sex, she would have said so?"

 

And she did

 

."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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, there's a recollection here of the thread, Roark the Dynamiter, in over-conflating Rand the artist and Rand the philosopher. Yes, they are one and the same, but the artist was primary. "I had to do it" she wrote in FTNI, about her need to create a philosophy.

To try to give her the full recognition she deserves, it's extraordinary that one person could seamlessly integrate the two spheres. Her conceptual scope and depth was evidently unique, and for that reason I believe an Objectivist ought to be most selective how he himself integrates the two.

Certainly her characters were her "ideal men and women" - but - according to the art-form of Romantic realism (Romanticism) - her "ideal" men are not 'perfect'. And then life (the plot) would throw up problems, there'd be dramatic tension, thwarted romance, love triangles etc. - and the characters will make errors of judgment. However, rationality and morality must triumph in the end. A representation of reality - in short.

And sure, her art was in many ways a vehicle for her philosophy; but as a great writer would, nearly always by implication (with an exception of Galt's Speech).

The literalism in the Fountainhead thread came about by Roark destroying his building (ha, or was it his? what right did he have??), read by some to be contradictory to Rand's advocacy of individual rights! I think that's a simplistic approach to literature.

While this one - about Rand's direct statement on Platonic love, versus the long-delayed sex in Atlas- is a far more reasonable topic, I continue to claim that deducing Objectivist doctrine from her art should be handled with care and can be done in excess.

Ronald Merrill in his book " The Ideas of Ayn Rand" calls it romantic surrealism and I tend to agree with him. In AS she created an improbably world which has very little in common with reality as we know it. This is a philosophical science fiction which was necessary to highlight ideas of Objectivism, something like her extended version of indestructible robot, a thought experiment. The same in much lesser degree applies to " Fountainhead". Do you think that real court in real life would ever acquit a Dynamiter? Nevertheless both novels were written in order to present the ideas of Objectivism and therefore I still puzzled by the fact that Rand's fiction directly collides with her non-fiction.

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eiuol

"To have a romantic relationship, yes, but it doesn't follow that feeling love can only ever properly be expressed with sex. "Just as an idea unexpressed in physical action is contemptible hypocrisy, so is platonic love". It only says physical action - don't you think of Rand meant to say sex, she would have said so?"

 

And she did

 

 

The quote in the OP is about love. This new quote is about romantic love. So, that's a big difference. Also, Rand is not saying romantic love is the only proper love, while she does say platonic love is not proper. Looks to me that Rand is saying love prior to having sex can't be described as romantic love because there is yet to be a passion that unites mind and body. She is not saying sex is the only proper expression for love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The quote in the OP is about love. This new quote is about romantic love. So, that's a big difference. Also, Rand is not saying romantic love is the only proper love, while she does say platonic love is not proper. Looks to me that Rand is saying love prior to having sex can't be described as romantic love because there is yet to be a passion that unites mind and body. She is not saying sex is the only proper expression for love.

Of course Platonic love which is unexpressed in action is not romantic love. And i also mentioned that there are many other forms of love which are not romantic. But the whole problem is that Ayn Rand describes romantic relationships as like as they were platonic or non-romantic. And yet nobody can claim that when Francisco expressed his love to Dagny he meant brotherly love. 

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course Platonic love which is unexpressed in action is not romantic love. And i also mentioned that there are many other forms of love which are not romantic. But the whole problem is that Ayn Rand describes romantic relationships as like as they were platonic or non-romantic. And yet nobody can claim that when Francisco expressed his love to Dagny he meant brotherly love. 

Just because it's not the full sense of romantic love doesn't mean it is platonic love. Not all non-romantic love is platonic, and that's the point worth emphasizing. I gave examples earlier of actions Francisco took to express his love. So what if it's not sexual? When love isn't reciprocated, sex is not really an option, lest you resort to rape, which is even worse. To get around that, by your view of what Rand implies, it seems that if you can't have sex, you must drop the emotions as fast as possible. Yet, your reason for loving someone won't disappear, so that would be a fine example of evasion. I don't think Rand's views implicitly argues for this, since it's quite clear from her other beliefs that something less than romantic love can be expressed without sex. Perhaps a full blown romantic love is "perfect", but no one should give up because they never reach that perfection. You love the person still, so why eliminate it? Platonic love would be denying that you can't wish your love away - it's still love, but it becomes actionless! So, what happens is that rational people like Francisco don't even try to eliminate their love. Dagny was still the same person essentially to Francisco, leading Francisco to continue loving her. I think Bluecherry made that point earlier, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know what forever means, but ten years is a bit too long to be called a temporary situation. Imagine that you have a temporary power failure for ten years. Besides, AS protagonists didn't read AS to the end. They didn't know how long their strike will last. It could fail as well. For them it was forever. 

 

". . romantic love is an action . . ."Nope. It's one species of passion."  So you disagree with Rand. Your right. 

Forever: permanent, endless. 10 years can be temporary. 100 years can be temporary. I'd say 1000 years could be temporary, but since nobody lives that long thus far, nobody there at the start would ever see an end if that end was1000 years away, making it effectively permanent.  I also wouldn't call something forever or permanent if one simply did not know when the end would come and what the end would look like.

However, again:

"That said, regardless of what we're calling such time periods, why do you contend that it must be brief? Yes, I know these things are the minority of cases, not the majority, but they still happen so it is still worth addressing, particularly since you seem to be arguing that Rand later in life determined that no such cases are possible/moral."

 

I don't think I disagree with Rand, I think I disagree with what it is that you think Rand is saying. :P My entire position is as it was from my first post in here: She didn't change her mind on the topic, AS just shows a fictional example or two of implied circumstances which the quote doesn't apply to. The quote doesn't apply to them because the quote is talking about choosing to have sex or not with ideas about sex and the body being negative as the *only* determining factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forever: permanent, endless. 10 years can be temporary. 100 years can be temporary. I'd say 1000 years could be temporary, but since nobody lives that long thus far, nobody there at the start would ever see an end if that end was1000 years away, making it effectively permanent.

I think Lazarus Long needs an honorable mention in this discussion. :santa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whew..

Semantic confusion.

Platonic love does not only mean love without sex (for a circumstantial reason), it means love which ~must never~ be sullied or consummated with sex

(because then it won't be 'True Lurv').

 

Regardless of the modern colloquial connotation - THAT is the literary denotation, which authors would apprehend. 

 

No clash, no contradiction Leon.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because it's not the full sense of romantic love doesn't mean it is platonic love. Not all non-romantic love is platonic, and that's the point worth emphasizing. I gave examples earlier of actions Francisco took to express his love. So what if it's not sexual? When love isn't reciprocated, sex is not really an option, lest you resort to rape, which is even worse. To get around that, by your view of what Rand implies, it seems that if you can't have sex, you must drop the emotions as fast as possible. Yet, your reason for loving someone won't disappear, so that would be a fine example of evasion. I don't think Rand's views implicitly argues for this, since it's quite clear from her other beliefs that something less than romantic love can be expressed without sex. Perhaps a full blown romantic love is "perfect", but no one should give up because they never reach that perfection. You love the person still, so why eliminate it? Platonic love would be denying that you can't wish your love away - it's still love, but it becomes actionless! So, what happens is that rational people like Francisco don't even try to eliminate their love. Dagny was still the same person essentially to Francisco, leading Francisco to continue loving her. I think Bluecherry made that point earlier, too.

Platonic love by definition refers to non-sexual love or to suppressed or sublimated sexual desire. Since our protagonists expressed very strong sexual desire toward Dagny what they did is a suppression and sublimation-Galt implicitly, by inaction and Francisco explicitly, by explaining to Dagny that he loves her, terribly wants to sleep with her but cannot do that and the Galt Gulch is a substitute for his love. ( See quote above). Even to Rearden it took couple of years of sexual fantasies and repression  before he, guilt ridden ,consummated his love with Dagny. None of them ever expressed non-romantic, that is-nonsexual feelings toward her. Dagny herself was much more open in this regard. She never suppressed or sublimed her passion.My greatest achievement, she said, is that I was sleeping with Rearden. In your case scenario, it's a tragedy, the whole world literature is about this kind of situations. What rational person could do? Apparently he would go through the normal process of grief, sense of lose, anger, blame but eventually, acceptance. His feelings toward the person should become non-romantic. That what Rearden did when he lost Dagny as a lover ( I always knew I'm not your final choice) and that what Francisco had to do but he didn't. As for Galt, there was no reason whatsoever for him to suppress his desire for decade. His struggle wouldn't be affected by his love. And the same applies to Francisco. In "Fountainhead" Dominic tried to destroy Roark pretty much as Galt tried to destroy Dagny. Yet it never stopped Roark and Dominic to be lovers.

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whew..

Semantic confusion.

Platonic love does not only mean love without sex (for a circumstantial reason), it means love which ~must never~ be sullied or consummated with sex

(because then it won't be 'True Lurv').

 

Regardless of the modern colloquial connotation - THAT is the literary denotation, which authors would apprehend. 

 

No clash, no contradiction Leon.

By definition Platonic love  is "a close relationship between two persons in which sexual desire is nonexistent or has been suppressed or sublimated" .( Merriam Webster dictionary). Since it is evident that AS protagonists did have very strong sexual desire toward Dagny but suppressed it, avoided to express it in action, Ayn Rand's characterization of Romantic love , that -is sexual desire, unexpressed in action, applies to them, and rightly so. Such a behavior is an epitome of mind-body dichotomy. Ayn Rand learned from the mistakes of her heroes and when she developed a strong desire toward Branden she didn't hesitate to express it in action. I still puzzled however why she ascribed such a contemptible ( in her own words)  behavior to her most noble protagonists?

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forever: permanent, endless. 10 years can be temporary. 100 years can be temporary. I'd say 1000 years could be temporary, but since nobody lives that long thus far, nobody there at the start would ever see an end if that end was1000 years away, making it effectively permanent.  I also wouldn't call something forever or permanent if one simply did not know when the end would come and what the end would look like.

However, again:

"That said, regardless of what we're calling such time periods, why do you contend that it must be brief? Yes, I know these things are the minority of cases, not the majority, but they still happen so it is still worth addressing, particularly since you seem to be arguing that Rand later in life determined that no such cases are possible/moral."

 

I don't think I disagree with Rand, I think I disagree with what it is that you think Rand is saying. :P My entire position is as it was from my first post in here: She didn't change her mind on the topic, AS just shows a fictional example or two of implied circumstances which the quote doesn't apply to. The quote doesn't apply to them because the quote is talking about choosing to have sex or not with ideas about sex and the body being negative as the *only* determining factor.

I think we all know what temporary means. It means short, brief, transitory. Of cause short is also relative concept and needs a frame of reference, which is in regard to human affairs usually a man's life span. So ten years is a significant chunk of human life and hardly could be referred as short or temporary. If you ask your employer for temporary leave, you both understand that it's not a 10 year absence. Besides, you imply that our protagonists are omniscient and omnipotent. They knew from the beginning how long their strike would last and they knew they are going to prevail in the end. Of cause they didn't, so for them the situation was permanent. As for a quote, it doesn't talk about sex at all. It postulates that an idea unexpressed in action is contemptible hypocrisy as Platonic love. Why? Because the meaning of this is mind-body dichotomy.

 

"You are an indivisible entity of matter and consciousness. Renounce your consciousness and you become a brute. Renounce your body and you become a fake. Renounce the material world and you surrender it to evil." (GS)

 

A man with romantic passion who voluntary suppresses his  sexual expression  is a soul without body, a ghost, a fake. And so is Platonic love.

 

"Romantic love—the profound, exalted, lifelong passion that unites his mind and body in the sexual act"

Observe, that mind-body unity expressed in sex for Rand is a necessary condition of Romantic love. Exactly this kind of unity our protagonists failed to demonstrate. Whatever kind of love Galt or Francisco felt toward Dagny it wasn't Romantic love. Not per Ayn Rand.

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By definition Platonic love  is "a close relationship between two persons in which sexual desire is nonexistent or has been suppressed or sublimated" .( Merriam Webster dictionary). Since it is evident that AS protagonists did have very strong sexual desire toward Dagny but suppressed it, avoided to express it in action, Ayn Rand's characterization of Romantic love , that -is sexual desire, unexpressed in action, applies to them, and rightly so. Such a behavior is an epitome of mind-body dichotomy. Ayn Rand learned from the mistakes of her heroes and when she developed a strong desire toward Branden she didn't hesitate to express it in action. I still puzzled however why she ascribed such a contemptible ( in her own words)  behavior to her most noble protagonists?

"Purely spiritual love for one of the opposite sex" [Concise Oxford..1950]

No mention of sublimation etc.

 

Dictionaries generally keep up with connotations, and I think the Webster has neutralised the definition in keeping with changing common usage, (and probably to avoid the "spiritual" aspect).

Which meaning would Rand have taken? Seeing her opinion of Plato's idealism? The classic definition provides the simple explanation and makes sense - the newer definition is ambiguous, and leads to complex explanations for AR's apparent self-contradiction. (No question which one I choose. Rand's consistency is legendary).

Edited by whYNOT
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...