Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Anuj

Romantic Love and Promiscuity

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Depending on how much I've learnt about Objectivism, I've have agreed to all aspects of it. But there is one concept or perhaps the acts relating to that concept which I find quite difficult to absorb.

 
I hold and agree that "Romantic love, in the full sense of the term, is an emotion possible only to the man (or woman) of un-breached self-esteem: it is his response to his own highest values in the person of another". But How is it moral or immoral, based on the standard of life, to stop loving one man just because you have found another who is better than your previous ? Couple of instances to cite here. 
 
  1. Dagny was in a Romantic relationship with Henry Rearden, but only until she met John Galt. If Integrity is loyalty to ones values. Where is integrity in that act ? Dagny was involved with John prior consent from Henry. 
  2. Ayn Rand was married to Frank O' Connor. But she got involved with Nathaniel Branden, nonetheless after Frank's consent. Nathaniel had the consent of his wife. 
Edited by Anuj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"How is it moral... to stop loving one man just because you have found another who is better?"
 
-As for #1, Dagny never stopped loving the men she was involved with. Rand makes that very clear.

Dagny/Rearden:

“Will you understand it, if I say that I'll always love you?"
"...admiration. If you will accept it, it will always be yours. What you meant to me can never be changed. But the man I met—he is the love I had wanted to reach long before I knew that he existed..."
 

(Rearden:)
"What you'll give him is not taken away from me, it's what I've never had."

Dagny/Francisco:

"Francisco, I did love you—" she said, and caught her breath, shocked, realizing that she had not intended to say it and, simultaneously, that this was not the tense she had wanted to use.
"But you do," he said calmly, smiling. "You still love me—even if there's one expression of it that you'll always feel and want, but will not give me any longer. I'm still what I was, and you'll always see it and you'll always grant me the same response, even if there's a greater one that you grant to another man. No matter what you feel for him, it will not change what you feel for me, and it won't be treason to either, because it comes from the same root, it's the same payment in answer to the same values. No matter what happens in the future, we'll always be what we were to each other, you and I, because you'll always love me."

"Francisco," she whispered, "do you know that?"
"Of course. Don't you understand it now? Dagny, every form of happiness is one, every desire is driven by the same motor—by our love for a single value, for the highest potentiality of our own existence—and every achievement is an expression of it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Long answer: First, before I answer, why or how does promiscuity enter the picture?

 

Is there a word for selective,transient sexual relationships ? Promiscuity involves many transient romantic/sexual relationships but based on a casual or un-selective approach. Dagny's approach was selective but not loyal and I say transient because I question what if there was somebody better than John Galt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you asking whether one should stop loving or stop making love to?

 

Yes. Am asking both, why should one stop loving or stop making love to.... Am sticking to the precondition of 'being in love' for 'making love' in this context. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dagny hadn't committed to any of them, so I don't think it's completely fair to say that she was not loyal. Francisco knew by what he was choosing to do that they would be separated and basically told her to move on with her life. Rearden she -might- have married, but he stayed with his wife during their relationship. It was also sort of suggested that she always knew neither of them were her final choice, and she knew when she met Galt that he was.
 

Rearden:

"I think I've always known that you would find him. I knew what you felt for me, I knew how much it was, but I knew that I was not your final choice.”

 

“somewhere within the past month, you have met the man you love, and if love means one's final, irreplaceable choice, then he is the only man you've ever loved." 

 

Dagny:

She thought: To find a feeling that would hold, as their sum, as their final expression, the purpose of all the things she loved on earth . . . To find a consciousness like her own, who would be the meaning of her world, as she would be of his . . . No, not Francisco d'Anconia, not Hank Rearden, not any man she had ever met or admired . . . A man who existed only in her knowledge of her capacity for an emotion she had never felt, but would have given her life to experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same idea (-about not falling out of love) is in The Fountainhead.

 

Roark:

“What you feel in the presence of a thing you admire is just one word--'Yes.' The affirmation, the acceptance, the sign of admittance. And that 'Yes' is more than an answer to one thing, it's a kind of 'Amen' to life, to the earth that holds this thing, to the thought that created it, to yourself for being able to see it. …In this sense, everything to which you grant your love is yours."

 

Wynand asked:

"Howard, that 'Yes'--once granted, can it be withdrawn?"

"Never," Roark answered, looking at Wynand.

 

"There's so much nonsense about human inconstancy and the transience of all emotions," said Wynand. "I've always thought that a feeling which changes never existed in the first place. There are books I liked at the age of sixteen. I still like them."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-As for #1, Dagny never stopped loving the men she was involved with. Rand makes that very clear.

 

I would rather use the words Admiration or Respect as opposed to (Romantic) Love.

 

(Rearden:)

"What you'll give him is not taken away from me, it's what I've never had."

 

 

It takes away sexual relationship, which he did have with her. 

 

Dagny/Francisco:

"...No matter what you feel for him, it will not change what you feel for me, and it won't be treason to either, because it comes from the same root, it's the same payment in answer to the same values...." 

 

There are contradictions here. It will change what one feels. Dagny would no longer feel the need for sexual intimacy with Francisco. And if same root, same payment in answer for same values, why should one bother changing the partner ?

 

Dagny hadn't committed to any of them, so I don't think it's completely fair to say that she was not loyal. Francisco knew by what he was choosing to do that they would be separated and basically told her to move on with her life. Rearden she -might- have married, but he stayed with his wife during their relationship. It was also sort of suggested that she always knew neither of them were her final choice, and she knew when she met Galt that he was.

 

The Atlas Shrugged is a work of fiction, therefore we can only look at situations and judge character as they were in the novel. Dagny's relationship with Rearden, Francisco and Galt begs the questions - would Dagny have remained loyal to John Galt, if there was someone else better than him ?, How do you say that John Galt would have remained the final choice ?

 

What was wrong with Rearden ? If his marriage was a factor, she should not have got involved with him in the first place. Agree that Rearden was slow to identify that his desire for Dagny was not immoral. He did realize that he shouldn't have been ashamed of his relationship with Dagny, and sought to hide it. He did realize that what he feels for Dagny reflects not the worst within him, but the best. He was slow but not morally wrong. Also please note, I do not question Rearden's loyalty to his wife, because he did not love her. But he did love Dagny. And Dagny did love him. Then why John Galt ?

 

 

 

 'Yes'--once granted, can it be withdrawn?"

"Never," Roark answered, looking at Wynand.

 

"There's so much nonsense about human inconstancy and the transience of all emotions," said Wynand. "I've always thought that a feeling which changes never existed in the first place. There are books I liked at the age of sixteen. I still like them."

 

 

That 'Yes' remains constant only if the object towards whom you show this emotion, remains constant. Our emotions towards human beings and objects changes, as per our understanding. Here is an example.

 

"In 1964 Nathaniel Branden began an affair with the young actress Patrecia Scott, whom he later married. Nathaniel and Barbara Branden kept the affair hidden from Rand. When she learned of it in 1968, though her romantic relationship with Branden had already ended, Rand terminated her relationship with both Brandens, which led to the closure of NBI. Rand published an article in The Objectivist repudiating Nathaniel Branden for dishonesty and other "irrational behavior in his private life"."

 

Feelings for an object or human exist and changes as per situations and understanding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"That 'Yes' remains constant only if the object towards whom you show this emotion, remains constant" -that's true, but in these cases (from AS) the character of all the people involved did remain constant.

 

I think "love" is still an appropriate word for what Dagny felt for Francisco and Rearden, even after meeting Galt, but even Rand uses it in different ways in different places, and "admiration" is nearly synonymous anyway. The main point is that her emotional responses to them did not diminish or disappear- they were simply eclipsed by something greater.

 

Galt was specifically designed to be the perfect embodiment of the Objectivist ideal, so in that sense- on the literary level- it's not possible that Dagny would ever switch to someone better than him. But naturalistically yes, all relationships are at least hypothetically open to competition and susceptible to one of the people falling more deeply in love with someone else. It should be an extremely rare kind of event, and context would have a lot to do with whether or not it should be acted on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does “take away the sexual relationship”. Why you "stop making love to" the lesser-value option, is a more interesting question. That gets more to the nature of romance and sex, maybe even values more generally.

These quotes are the short answer:
"Sex is the preeminent form of bringing love into physical reality." (OPAR)
"His exclusive possession is the material form of her love for him" (from Rand's journals, Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Splitprimary,

Agreed. All people of AS would remain constant. And on the literal level Galt is perfect embodiment of Objectivist ideal. So Dagny would stick to Galt, as he is the embodiment. But what are the reasons for not sticking with Rearden ? 

 

I think "love" is still an appropriate word for what Dagny felt for Francisco and Rearden

 

You can still call their relationship as love but it cannot be Romantic ? In order to avoid Contradictions, units are used as a method of identification or classification according to the attributes which a consciousness observes in reality. Therefore lets use (if not already ?) Romantic Love as way to distinguish from Admiration and Respect, as it involves Sexual relationship also.

 

 

 The main point is that her emotional responses to them did not diminish or disappear- they were simply eclipsed by something greater.

 

 

Something greater ? Sounds mystical. Can you expand on this. 

 

But naturalistically yes, all relationships are at least hypothetically open to competition and susceptible to one of the people falling more deeply in love with someone else. It should be an extremely rare kind of event, and context would have a lot to do with whether or not it should be acted on.

 

This is where my question of morality lies. Once you have found that person who matches the values you hold, the competition should close. Why ? Because Integrity is loyalty to ones values. Unless your understanding or something about that other person (romantic partner) drastically changes, I don't see a reason for open competition. 

 

....Why you "stop making love to" the lesser-value option, is a more interesting question.....

These quotes are the short answer:
"Sex is the preeminent form of bringing love into physical reality." (OPAR)
"His exclusive possession is the material form of her love for him" (from Rand's journals, Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics)

 

 

The quotes above only suggest how epistemological love is brought into metaphysical form - Sex. It only equates epistemological concept of love to metaphysical act of Sex. It does not answer the questions why "stop making love to" lesser value option. 

 

Anuj

Edited by Anuj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Is there a word for selective,transient sexual relationships ? Promiscuity involves many transient romantic/sexual relationships but based on a casual or un-selective approach. Dagny's approach was selective but not loyal and I say transient because I question what if there was somebody better than John Galt. 

There always might be a "better" person that exists, but that's not knowable, making all relationships transient by your meaning. It's not really integrity to stay "loyal" to an unknowable value and presume the "ideal perfection" exists. Still, I'm not seeing how promiscuity applies here. Besides, I'm saying even if Dagny knew of someone else of similar value, it would be immoral to stop loving one person for only reasons of monogamy, and I doubt its possible to stop feeling love due to mere willpower. Dagny probably loved Rearden still. Whether she should have sex with him is another question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we are dealing with loose terminologies here, I would like to begin from the end. 

...I doubt its possible to stop feeling love due to mere willpower. Dagny probably loved Rearden still. Whether she should have sex with him is another question.

 

Love as such is a loose term which can be used for any of these: friendship, family relation, or romantic partner. Therefore lets hold Romantic Love as an emotion reserved only to a Romantic Partner. Following is the definition of Romantic Love : "Romantic love, in the full sense of the term, is an emotion possible only to the man (or woman) of unbreached self-esteem: it is his response to his own highest values in the person of another—an integrated response of mind and body, of love and sexual desire. Such a man (or woman) is incapable of experiencing a sexual desire divorced from spiritual values"

 

Rephrasing, Romantic love is integrated response of both mind and body, of both emotional concept of love and the metaphysical act of Sex.

  1. So, No! with respect to Romantic Love, the question of love and sex should not be different but one and the same. And besides Sex divorced from Romantic Love is either arbitrary or casual. 
  2. Therefore Dagny, once after starting off with Galt,  can be in love or reciprocate love with Rearden as a respectable virtuous friend but not as a romantic partner, neither emotionally nor physically. If not, this definitely qualifies as promiscuity.
  3. Also if its held that Romantic Love should be exercised with one and only one partner then the question for "stop feeling based on mere willpower" is invalid. Because the very act of more than one partner makes it promiscuous. 

Still, I'm not seeing how promiscuity applies here. Besides, I'm saying even if Dagny knew of someone else of similar value, it would be immoral to stop loving one person for only reasons of monogamy, 

 

It is promiscuous and immoral ( questioning integrity) of Dagny to start a romantic relationship with Galt, in the first place itself. I say promiscuous because I don't see a reason why Dagny should leave Rearden. On the other hand, Rearden's humble acceptance can only be categorized as an act of charity. 

 

There always might be a "better" person that exists, but that's not knowable, making all relationships transient by your meaning. It's not really integrity to stay "loyal" to an unknowable value and presume the "ideal perfection" exists. 

 

Agree with the above said. 

Edited by Anuj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Therefore Dagny, once after starting off with Galt,  can be in love or reciprocate love with Rearden as a respectable virtuous friend but not as a romantic partner, neither emotionally nor physically. If not, this definitely qualifies as promiscuity.

Can one feel "romantic love" for more than one person simultaneously? Is it possible for one's feelings for one person to fade, or for one's feelings for another person to grow?

 

It is promiscuous and immoral ( questioning integrity) of Dagny to start a romantic relationship with Galt, in the first place itself.

Even if she has romantic feelings for him? If that's your claim, on what basis? Why shouldn't she develop a romantic relationship with a man if she has romantic feelings (i.e. love) for that man?

 

On the other hand, Rearden's humble acceptance can only be categorized as an act of charity.

How so? If Rearden's feelings for Dagny are true, and if he desires her to be happy, then why should he desire her to do anything apart from what makes her happiest? You think he would rather her remain apart from Galt at the cost of her own happiness? But what kind of love would that be? What kind of relationship could he hope to have with her thereafter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing in the actual definition of Romantic love necessarily includes "the act of sex". Romantic love "is an emotion", "love and sexual desire", but whether the relationship is actually sexual is a different question. Context matters. The feelings Francisco and Dagny have for each other will always be romantic in nature. He says: "There's one expression of it that you'll always feel and want, but will not give me any longer." and "Will I want to sleep with you? Desperately. Will I envy the man who does? Sure." So even "sexual desire" can still be present.

 

OPAR specifies: “When a man and woman do fall in love- assuming that each is romantically free and the context otherwise appropriate- sex is a necessary and proper expression of their feeling for each other." -Not that it always is in all situations.

-----

It's not an act of charity that Rearden "accepts" Dagny's relationship with Galt, and she did not need his consent. He expresses it really well: "What you'll give him is not taken away from me, it's what I've never had. I can't rebel against it."

The idea appears again in Galt's speech: "Like any other value, love is not a static quantity to be divided, but an unlimited response to be earned. The love for one friend is not a threat to the love for another, and neither is the love for the various members of one’s family, assuming they have earned it. The most exclusive form—romantic love—is not an issue of competition. If two men are in love with the same woman, what she feels for either of them is not determined by what she feels for the other and is not taken away from him. If she chooses one of them, the “loser” could not have had what the “winner” has earned."

-----
 

In "His exclusive possession is the material form of her love for him”, the word "exclusive" is what addresses why lesser value relationships cannot remain sexual too. but you're right, that's defending monogamy, not establishing why there is a switch.

 

I think the issue here is taking "values" too concretely. You say, "Once you have found that person who matches the values you hold, the competition should close. Because Integrity is loyalty to ones values." In the first half of the statement you have it right, that it's not primarily about the person, but about the values you see in them, -that's what you're really in love with, and in love with the person to the extent that they display those values. But then you say, "integrity is loyalty to values" and by "values" there you have shifted to mean the particular person, loyalty to them regardless of the values you see in anyone else. What you really have to remain loyal to above anything are your values in the abstract sense, and so when you find a person who exhibits those to a greater degree, the emotional response (and action) follows that.
 

This is what it means when they say things like this:

  • “Dagny, all three of us are in love— with the same thing, no matter what its forms. Don't wonder why you feel no breach among us.”
  • “every desire is driven by the same motor—by love for a single value, for the highest potentiality...”
  • “it won't be treason to either, because it comes from the same root”
  • “I feel that I have committed no treason, either to you or to him." -“You haven't."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Can one feel "romantic love" for more than one person simultaneously? Is it possible for one's feelings for one person to fade, or for one's feelings for another person to grow?
 

 

That's exactly my point! Please see that I've differentiated Love for a friend to Romantic Love for Romantic Partner. 

 

Even if she has romantic feelings for him? If that's your claim, on what basis? Why shouldn't she develop a romantic relationship with a man if she has romantic feelings (i.e. love) for that man?

 

My question is why did she develop those feeling in the first place, when she was romantically involved with Rearden ? What did Rearden lack ? Was she always looking for somebody better ? On what moral grounds she developed those feeling for Galt even though she had the same feeling for Rearden. Feelings need to necessary be Romantic, it can also be of Admiration and/or respect. 

 

How so? If Rearden's feelings for Dagny are true, and if he desires her to be happy, then why should he desire her to do anything apart from what makes her happiest? You think he would rather her remain apart from Galt at the cost of her own happiness? But what kind of love would that be? What kind of relationship could he hope to have with her thereafter?

 

I agree. I've made an error here. There is no choice possible for Rearden. What I should have said was in any case he stands to lose Romantic relationship with Dagny. 

Edited by Anuj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Splitprimary, 

I read through your response. I've one question to ask you. Do you think it is morally correct to develop Romantic relationship (including physical) with another man when you are already involved with one ? If not, i request you to justify.  And yes I do take Values concretely. I did not shift, I always intended the Value ( in that context) meant the particular Person. And I was always talking about loyalty to that person, unless your understanding of him changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want it to be pointed out that such has been the theme not just in Atlas Shrugged but also in Fountain Head and We The Living. 

  1. Dominique Franco (FH) - Married Peter Keating, Gail Wynand. And romantic with Howard Roark. Their first sexual act, is highly dramatic and irrational. Irrational because of complete anonymity.
  2. Kira Argounova (We The Living)- Irrational love at first sight with Leo Kovalensky and affair with Andrei Tagano.

I've gone through Ayn Rand's brief biography. I can only assume that the concept of Romantic love was premature until she started working for Atlas shrugged. And I'm questioning to understand if there is still scope for improvement, and if yes, how much ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Romantic love as an emotion is not under your direct control, it's an automatic response to seeing your values in another person, just like "admiration" or "respect". So that's amoral, and actually positive as it's always good to find value!

Developing a romantic relationship is saying something more, that's active, but still can be taken just to mean intentionally developing a relationship where there also happens to be some attraction, so I don't think that's inherently immoral either (or you couldn't have attractive friends). Dagny and Francisco I'm sure maintained their friendship even though we know there was mutual attraction, and I think it's reasonable to assume they would have become friends even if they met for the first time in the Gulch once she was already with Galt.

Sex is the only thing I think absolutely has to be exclusive, so I don't think it would be morally correct to begin another physical/sexual relationship when you're already involved with someone. But that's a whole different debate, and Objectivists don't all agree on that.

----

"person who matches the values you hold" is the first "value" statement I was referring to: looking for a person (concrete) who matches values you hold (abstract), who then becomes a "value" (concrete) to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's exactly my point! Please see that I've differentiated Love for a friend to Romantic Love for Romantic Partner.

I agree that the love one feels for a friend is not necessarily the same as a romantic love.

 

My question is why did she develop those feeling in the first place, when she was romantically involved with Rearden ? What did Rearden lack ? Was she always looking for somebody better ? On what moral grounds she developed those feeling for Galt even though she had the same feeling for Rearden. Feelings need to necessary be Romantic, it can also be of Admiration and/or respect.

I'm going to be speaking primarily of my own beliefs and experiences; my ability to speak to someone else's is limited at best.

But in my experience, I tend to feel for people based on who they are (insofar as I know them) and what they represent to my life. I don't choose to have specific feelings or consciously direct any particular development of feeling. Rather, I get to know a person, and as I do feelings manifest accordingly, operating subconsciously. If I were to meet and get to know a woman who would be attractive to me, based on who she is as a person, I expect I would eventually find her attractive.

And so, I don't think that the answer to your question is necessarily a matter of what Rearden "lacks." Instead, John Galt was a man whom Dagny would find attractive to that degree, and vice-versa. She might have met him, and fell for him, prior to engaging Rearden in that relationship -- but she didn't. I don't think she was necessarily "looking for somebody better," but, in some sense, that's apparently what she found in Galt. It would have been dishonest (meaning: to herself) if she refused to recognize that internal truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Splitprimary, DonAthos
 
Emotion and feelings cannot be controlled, but what we choose as our values can be. 
 
"Man is born with an emotional mechanism, just as he is born with a cognitive mechanism; but, at birth, both are “tabula rasa.” It is man’s cognitive faculty, his mind, that determines the content of both. Man’s emotional mechanism is like an electronic computer, which his mind has to program—and the programming consists of the values his mind chooses."
 
A man may abhor Pornography, or be sexually aroused by it. His emotions (abhor/arousal) are responses generated based on the values he holds consciously or subconsciously. If a man values his romantic partner, if a man values integrity, it forms a deadlock. I don't see how there would an emotional response of Romantic Love for anyone else. 

 

 

It is based on this concept, I'm questioning Dagny's character portrayal. 

 

 

..., I don't think that the answer to your question is necessarily a matter of what Rearden "lacks." Instead, John Galt was a man whom Dagny would find attractive to that degree, and vice-versa. She might have met him, and fell for him, prior to engaging Rearden in that relationship -- but she didn't. I don't think she was necessarily "looking for somebody better," but, in some sense, that's apparently what she found in Galt. It would have been dishonest (meaning: to herself) if she refused to recognize that internal truth.

 

DonAthos, I have to point out that this paragraph is evasively worded. it acknowledges the questions (was Dagny's act immoral ?) but does not answer it. The only way we can arrive at a concrete judgement is by looking at concrete facts based on what we perceive. Since there was no one else better described in the book, she would stick to Galt. But what proof do you give me that she would stick with Galt even if there was someone better ? I give you proof that she left Rearden (for no reason of his) and choose Galt, who is perhaps somebody better. 

Edited by Anuj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a man values his romantic partner, if a man values integrity, it forms a deadlock. I don't see how there would an emotional response of Romantic Love for anyone else.

How do you reach this conclusion? What does integrity (or "valuing integrity") have to do with it? What does "it forms a deadlock" mean in any case?

It might help us to try to think in somewhat more concrete terms, rather than this seemingly abstract kind of calculus.

Suppose a beautiful, intelligent, kind, etc., woman, for whom I feel romantic love, value as a romantic partner, and so on. Suppose now a second woman, equally beautiful, equally intelligent, equally kind. You're saying that I would feel no attraction to this second woman -- because of my "integrity"? How so? If I am attracted to a woman such as the first, due to her qualities, how am I supposed to not find those same qualities attractive in the second?

 

I have to point out that this paragraph is evasively worded. it acknowledges the questions (was Dagny's act immoral ?) but does not answer it.

Not because I "have" to do anything, but because I choose to, I'll let you know that I consider this to be an insulting way to respond. It inspires me to respond to you with venom, rather than the general sense of goodwill and cooperation I'd initially approached this conversation with, and which I expect in return.

Because I have no interest in either being insulted, or in the way I'm feeling right now, in wanting to return in kind, if you do this again I'll remove myself from the situation. So if you'd like to continue to have me as a partner for this discussion, I'll ask that you restrict yourself to discussing the topic.

If it remains unclear to you how I answer the question "was Dagny's act immoral," allow me to describe the situation to you, as I see it (feel free to correct, if necessary): you are arguing that she acted immorally; I am questioning your argument and consequently taking up the position that she did not act immorally. I do not see anything immoral in falling in love with a person (as with John Galt in this scenario) or in acting on that love (i.e. choosing to be with him).

If you find that this does not directly address what you're after, rather than insinuating that I'm evading, you can simply ask for further clarification. If there's a question you'd like me to answer, ask it.

 

The only way we can arrive at a concrete judgement is by looking at concrete facts based on what we perceive. Since there was no one else better described in the book, she would stick to Galt. But what proof do you give me that she would stick with Galt even if there was someone better ?

Where am I arguing that "she would stick with Galt even if there was someone better"?

Edited to add: Moreover, why should she?

Edited by DonAthos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not because I "have" to do anything, but because I choose to, I'll let you know that I consider this to be an insulting way to respond. It inspires me to respond to you with venom, rather than the general sense of goodwill and cooperation I'd initially approached this conversation with, and which I expect in return.

Because I have no interest in either being insulted, or in the way I'm feeling right now, in wanting to return in kind, if you do this again I'll remove myself from the situation. So if you'd like to continue to have me as a partner for this discussion, I'll ask that you restrict yourself to discussing the topic.

 

I'm uncouth, socially awkward. I'm really confused most times about how to put or say things and social niceties. My intentions are to remain Honest without trying to hurt others. I guess that is where my mistake lies.. in thinking "not wanting to hurt others". Thank you for pointing it out. I will just be direct henceforth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

How do you reach this conclusion? What does integrity (or "valuing integrity") have to do with it? What does "it forms a deadlock" mean in any case?

 

My reasoning is based on the following definitions of the term 'Integrity'
  1. Integrity is the recognition of the fact that you cannot fake your consciousness, just as honesty is the recognition of the fact that you cannot fake existence—that man is an indivisible entity, an integrated unit of two attributes: of matter and consciousness, and that he may permit no breach between body and mind, between action and thought, between his life and his convictions.
  2. Integrity is loyalty to one’s convictions and values
  3. The virtue involved in helping those one loves is not “selflessness” or “sacrifice,” but integrity. 
I've Bolded the one which forms the basis of deadlock when one values something. Unless the evaluation is bound to change.
 

Suppose a beautiful, intelligent, kind, etc., woman, for whom I feel romantic love, value as a romantic partner, and so on. Suppose now a second woman, equally beautiful, equally intelligent, equally kind. You're saying that I would feel no attraction to this second woman -- because of my "integrity"? How so? If I am attracted to a woman such as the first, due to her qualities, how am I supposed to not find those same qualities attractive in the second?

 

I've quoted my reasons above at beginning of this post. Are you contradicting yourself from your first post where you quoted "Can one feel "romantic love" for more than one person simultaneously? Is it possible for one's feelings for one person to fade, or for one's feelings for another person to grow?"  ?

 

Where am I arguing that "she would stick with Galt even if there was someone better"?

Edited to add: Moreover, why should she?

 

She should, unless she wants to stop or change how much she values Galt. 

Edited by Anuj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...