redfarmer Posted April 29, 2004 Report Share Posted April 29, 2004 I was wondering: how would you define egoistic love? How is it different from most "love"? How can you be sure that a potential partner would be a good partner egoisticaly? Also, it seems that Ayn Rand was fond of love triangles in her novels: Kira, Leo, and Andrei in We The Living, Roark, Wynand, and Dominique in The Fountainhead, as well as Dagny being loved by Galt, Franscisco, Rearden, and Eddie Willers at the same time in Atlas Shrugged. In view of this, how is it possible to truly love more than one person at a time and, when this does occur, how is one to determine which the best choice is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
source Posted April 29, 2004 Report Share Posted April 29, 2004 Ayn Rand said: You fall in love with a person because you regard him or her as a value, and because they contribute to your personal happiness. Now you couldn't fall in love with a person by saying: "You mean nothing to me, I don't care whether you live or die, but you need me, and therefore, I'm in love with you." If someone offered love of that kind, everyone would regard that as a deadly insult. That isn't love. Therefore, romantic love is a selfish emotion. It is the choice of a person as a great value and what you fall in love with is the same values, which you choose, embodied in another person.I think this pretty much answers your questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted May 3, 2004 Report Share Posted May 3, 2004 how is it possible to truly love more than one person at a time and, when this does occur, how is one to determine which the best choice is? It isn't possible to truly love more than one person at a time. (I mean romantically, of course.) Romantic love means that you value your chosen one above everyone else. If you don't--if you cannot tell without hesitation whether you would have her in preference to [insert name of other girl]--then you are not truly in love with her. Romance is about finding the winner of your heart. If you have people tied for places 1-2 (or 1-N), you do not have a winner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryptonique Posted May 3, 2004 Report Share Posted May 3, 2004 In view of this, how is it possible to truly love more than one person at a time and, when this does occur, how is one to determine which the best choice is? It is possible to love more than one person because at the root...they are all the same when it comes to the values they embody. That is why it isn't a betrayal for Dagny to love Frisco, Rearden, and Galt. The way Dagny determined is by who BEST embodied those values. Galt is the one who best embodied their values because he understood the only correct way to fully embrace those values.....by not sanctioning the looter and by shrugging them off to create a world where values could reach their full potential. I think the Dagny/Galt model could best be applied to your own life. As for Leo/Kira/Andrei.... Kira loves Leo which is why she sleeps with Andrei to get money for his little trip to the Crimea. She doesn't fully love Andrei in the same way because he embodies a contradiction....individualism and a sense of life mixed with Communist party servitude. As for Dominique, Roark, and Wynand....same thing. Wynand sacrifices his own values for profit and Roark profits from his values. Who is the better man? Who does Dominique really stand by and love throughout the novel? These are all clear cut where one man wins out over the rest. I agree 100% with Capitalism Forever's point about only one person being able to fully win over your heart at a time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfarmer Posted May 3, 2004 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2004 Galt is the one who best embodied their values because he understood the only correct way to fully embrace those values.....by not sanctioning the looter and by shrugging them off to create a world where values could reach their full potential.. I can see that with Rearden but Frisco never truly betrayed his values. He held full integrity until the end. Everyone only thought he didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryptonique Posted May 4, 2004 Report Share Posted May 4, 2004 I agree. Frisco didn't BETRAY his values...he had full integrity. The thing is though....he had to be taught. He had to be approached and taught. Who would Dagny fall in love with and be willing to submit to? An equal (like Frisco who had to be shown the right way to embody values) or the dominant powerhouse of a teacher like Jon Galt? If you remember, Galt approached Frisco about shrugging. Dagny was the reason why it was so crazily hard for him to leave and shrug. He asks her if she would be willing to give up her railroad and she responds angrily "what would you expect me to say if you asked me if I wanted to committ suicide?" (paraphrased). She wasn't ready....and Frisco was barely ready. She fell in love with the BEST man she could fall in love with...and that was Galt. A man without pain (Frisco), fear (rearden) or guilt. The essence of Rand's heroes. She couldn't have anything LESS than Galt. 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.