Welcome to Objectivism Online Forum

Welcome to Objectivism Online, a forum for discussing the philosophy of Ayn Rand. For full access, register via Facebook or email.

happiness

How important to you is it that your partner be an Objectivist?

Rate this topic

11 posts in this topic

I apologize if this has been covered at length in another thread; I didn't know what search terms to use to check.

So how important is it to you that your romantic partner be an Objectivist? If it's not, how do you get serious with someone who doesn't share your most deeply held views?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, happiness said:

I apologize if this has been covered at length in another thread; I didn't know what search terms to use to check.

So how important is it to you that your romantic partner be an Objectivist? If it's not, how do you get serious with someone who doesn't share your most deeply held views?

It is important, but you can always convert people by persuading them of your positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not important at all for me. An interest in Objectivism is not a deepest value, and such an interest is neither necessary nor sufficient for such a sharing. This is not to deny that the character traits that caused the two to take an interest in Rand's writing could be deepest values. Such an interest might also be superficial or even bad-willed; most of us, I suspect, have met at least one thoroughly repellent character who claimed to be an Objectivist.

Somebody who is positively snide and hostile to Objectivism wouldn't attract me, not because of overt convictions but because of traits hat this hostility indicates. People hit it off - as lovers, friends, business partners, performing partners and so on - or they don't. Nobody deduces the outcome from the contents of a checklist.

JASKN likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, happiness said:

So how important is it to you that your romantic partner be an Objectivist? If it's not, how do you get serious with someone who doesn't share your most deeply held views?

To me, there are some traits that are important if the relationship is serious and potentially long-term. Not comprehensive, but top-of-mind:

The person should take ideas seriously and be an independent thinker. This does not actually mean they should spend a lot of their time discussing ideas, but when they do they should be the type of person who can unpeel common bromides, consider niche viewpoints, and come to some understanding for themselves, regardless of the majority view of those around them. 

They should have some value-creating focus in life. It does not have to be a full-time job. It does not have to pay. It could include keeping house. It could even be pursuing some line of study. More important than the particulars is an approach of treating it as important, and trying to be good at it. 

They should not be overly affected by the opinion of others: friends, family, media, etc. They should be able to work past the emotions of negative attitudes toward them, and consider if there really is something about themselves they should change; and, if they decide they're just fine, they should be able to (mostly) ignore such negative and do what they think is right.

So, that's rationality, productiveness and pride right there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd characterize it as a huge bonus, but not a necessity. What is necessary is that they not be strongly antagonistic to and condescending about Objectivism. I don't find it attractive when somebody won't take seriously something this important to me that I've put a lot of thought into. I think I may also, for romance, require that somebody not be big on initiating force to compel others to live according to their point of view. That's just something that I find too downright infuriating to get past enough to really love somebody like that if they will actively try to make me and others live their way no matter what we want and believe to the contrary. That makes them come across as an active threat and an enemy to me, even if it is pretty small scale how much power they have to actually make much of anything happen. In a friend I could tolerate easily something like enthusiastically and consistently voting for controlling politicians, but not a romantic partner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Objectivism notes, everyone leads his life by a philosophy whether he knows it or not, and Rand wasn't the first or last person to favor most aspects of Objectivism. That means there are plenty of people who will jive with you without necessarily identifying why. Then, even after you might think or say, "Wow, we both like this, like doing that together, like how we respond to this and that around each other, perhaps/likely because of these reasons," most moments apart from those explicit identification moments will be enjoyed by how they are naturally experienced. You'll usually just laugh with someone and enjoy it, without identifying explicitly why and only then enjoying youself.

Many people are compatible with Objectivists without identifying as such explicitly themselves. It might help to think of it another way, too: Would you automatically become involved with someone romantically simply because she identifies as an Objectivist?

Alfa likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2016‎-‎09‎-‎20 at 1:37 AM, bluecherry said:

I'd characterize it as a huge bonus, but not a necessity. What is necessary is that they not be strongly antagonistic to and condescending about Objectivism. I don't find it attractive when somebody won't take seriously something this important to me that I've put a lot of thought into. I think I may also, for romance, require that somebody not be big on initiating force to compel others to live according to their point of view. That's just something that I find too downright infuriating to get past enough to really love somebody like that if they will actively try to make me and others live their way no matter what we want and believe to the contrary. That makes them come across as an active threat and an enemy to me, even if it is pretty small scale how much power they have to actually make much of anything happen. In a friend I could tolerate easily something like enthusiastically and consistently voting for controlling politicians, but not a romantic partner.

Aren't those necessary in any close relationship? I mean, sure, in a professional environment I might have to deal with some of that cordially. Bullies though, might find I'm not so nice after all. Either way, people like that I always keep at a good distance. Having someone like that as a partner would be unthinkable.

Mutual respect and admiration is a necessity for a romantic relationship. Who the hell would want to be in a relationship where those are not cornerstones?

Personally, I think there are lot's of people worth respect, admiration and even love who are not Objectivists. I also think there are Objectivists who are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2016‎-‎09‎-‎21 at 7:04 AM, JASKN said:

It might help to think of it another way, too: Would you automatically become involved with someone romantically simply because she identifies as an Objectivist?

Indeed, that is a very good way to put it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Alfa said:

Aren't those necessary in any close relationship?

Actually, I made the specification because I have had a number of close friends with pretty strongly negative assessments of Objectivism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, bluecherry said:

Actually, I made the specification because I have had a number of close friends with pretty strongly negative assessments of Objectivism.

Sorry to say, but they were not as close as you thought.

Don't get me wrong. I have a few friends who are fairly negative to Objectivism (not that they understand the philosophy, but anyhow). However, we have enough in common have fun together and discuss philosophy or politics without anyone getting too pissed off. Most importantly, there's a mutual respect. It would be impossible if there wasn't (it would probably have ended in fisticuffs otherwise).

I mean, we can all think that the other one has some stupid idea - and say it just like that - but there's at least this mutual respect that we all deal with ideas. Agree or disagree. We can all argue about that, but it's always with a certain respect - like the other person is actually worth listening to and take seriously. It would not work otherwise.

Of course, if that doesn't work we just talk about titties and beer. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, that might be somewhat of a local thing. I understand that americans are a lot more comfortable with disagreement that us swedes, or europeans, are. Here you better fit into the politically correct mold, or you're going to make enemies (and I have...). My friends are the kind of people who can handle disagreement, intense arguments, and even get pissed off without making a big deal of it. Rather, they enjoy different views and like to argue them.

That's pretty rare over here. Most people would just get pissed off, scream obscenities and never talk to you again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.