Trebor

The year is 2046. Governments around the world have now successfully been destroyed, and there has arisen a free market for protection agencies. However, there has also arisen a free market for aggression services or agencies - free market agencies in business to beat, rob and kill people. Since such agencies are scarce resources, they can be offered on the market for a price. And these days, business is booming. Smith wants to kill Jones. He had considered either beating Jones up or robbing him, but he learned that Jones has hired Brown (the low bidder for protection services, half of Johnson's rate) to protect him against Smith. Since Jones has now driven up Smith's costs in attacking Jones, Smith decides to not only kill Jones, but to also kill Brown, the owner of Brown Protection Services. Smith does a Google search and discovers that JB Aggression Services offers him the best deal, and so he hires JB Aggression Services to kill Smith and Brown. Smith's contact with JB Aggression Services is Sally. Smith and Sally fall in love, get married and live happily ever after.

Seems that the only thing that stands in the way of mankind having real freedom is government. In order to be free to have (a free market of) competing protection agencies, we first have to destroy our government, if not all other governments. Then we will have a truly free market, not only for protection agencies, but for everything.

More like a lioness in heat taking a violent swipe at a lion that is after her, scratching him across the face, realizing he is after her, that he wants her. Instead of standing her ground, she takes off...knowing that he's still after her. I've reread the rather brief part of the story, from when they first meet at the quarry to the "rape," and I've taken some notes: Roark walked a couple of miles each way, from the town where he stayed to the quarry, each day he worked. When Dominique first saw Roark, she thought that his face was the most beautiful face she would ever see, strength made visible. Roark looked at her as an "owner," yet she could not turn away, and she kept looking at him, at his body, and she wondered what he would look like naked. She hated him. She hoped that his work hurt him. Leaving that day, she remembered his hand on the granite. The memory, the image, frightened her. "She thought of the many distinguished men whom she had refused. She thought of the quarry worker. She thought of being broken--not by a man she admired, but by a man she loathed. She let her head fall down on her arm; the thought left her weak with pleasure." She stayed away from the quarry for a couple of days, then went back, standing above where he was working. He looked up. She did not turn away. He went back to his work. She wanted him to look at her again. He did not. A few days later she returns to the quarry. Suddenly she sees him beside the path, not at a distance, staring at her. "Why do you always stare at me?" she asked sharply. He did not answer immediately, but kept staring at her. She was afraid that he wouldn't answer and it terrified her. "For the same reason you've been staring at me," he finally said. "I don't know what you're talking about," she said. "If you don't, then you'd be much more astonished and much less angry, Miss Francon," he answered. She stayed away for days, visited neighbors who actually bored her, and relished the thought that they respected her all the while she was thinking of a quarry worker. A young poet drove her home, stopped the car and made a move on her. She was repulsed, got out of the car and walked home. She had had many men come on to her, but it had always amused her and left her feeling nothing, not repulsed. This time it repulsed her. Because of a man, a common laborer in a quarry, an insolent man who looked openly at her as a woman, not deferential to her station (her father owned the quarry). She knew that he wanted her, admitted it to herself, and she knew that he would never have her and knew the suffering it would cause him. She tried, with all her strength and many blows, to break the marble slab in her bedroom, went to the quarry, directly up to Roark, and asked him to come to her house to replace a piece of broken marble. He treated it as a simple request to hire him to do some job, and she thought the tension between them was lost, but then she realized, in his "natural acceptance of an unnatural offer," that it was still there, only more intimately so. She felt the shame and pleasure which he always gave her. He came to her home, went up the stairs to her and followed her to her bedroom where she pointed out the "broken" piece of marble. "He said nothing. He knelt, took a thin metal wedge from his bag, held its point against the scratch on the slab, took a hammer and struck one blow. The marble split in a long, deep cut. "He glanced up at her. It was the look she dreaded, a look of laughter that could not be answered, because the laughter could not be seen, only felt. "He said: "Now it's broken and has to be replaced." He worked on the marble. They talked - forces and pressures. When he was done, he asked her if she would like him to install the new marble when it arrived. Yes, she did. When the marble finally arrived, she sent him a note to let him know. He sent a note back, "You'll have it set tonight." Roark sent someone else to set the marble. "She had to get out of the room. She had to run, not to be seen by anyone, not to be seen by herself if she could escape it. "She stopped somewhere in the garden and stood trembling, pressing her fists against her eyes. It was anger. It was a pure, single emotion that swept everything clean; everything but the terror under the anger; terror, because she knew that she could not go near the quarry now and that she would go." She rode her horse to the quarry, but knew that he had already left, so she race off towards her home, stopping to tear a flexible branch from a tree, stripping off the leaves, using the branch as a whip to goad the horse to go faster. "She felt as if the speed would hasten the evening on, force the hours ahead to pass more quickly, let her leap across time to catch the coming morning before it came. And then she saw him walking alone on the path before her." She raced up to him and stopped abruptly. "Why didn't you come to set the marble?," she asked. "I didn't think it would make any difference to you who came. Or did it, Miss Francon? "She felt the words not as sounds, but as a blow flat against her mouth. The branch she held went up and slashed across his face. She started off in the sweep of the same motion." Later that night, on to her scent, the lion found the lioness. [my bolds]

Dominique did in fact deliver an "engraved invitation" - to settle things by force. She delivered it the old fashioned way, by direct delivery. It was etched across Roark's face. Roark was not responding to Dominique's wishes, serving her desires, helping her to express or discover her femininity, nor was he trying to fulfill his role as a masculine man. She aroused his desire, slashed him across his face, and he took what he wanted.

Okay, thank you, Johathan. That helps, even though I'm still a bit confused. I still don't really understand the distinction, as you are using it, between the objective and the subjective elements. Same confusion. This is another instance in which some concretes or examples would help (as to her "selectively applied biases against subjectivity and in favor of intelligibility based on her personal, subjective preferences"), to whatever extent and if and when you care to give them. I've read some of your challenges to Miss Rand's views on art in other threads, over time, and I do at least think you bring up some legitimate questions or challenges. Still, again, I think what's missing, in part at least, is definitions and an understanding of just what you mean by subjective and objective. Let me ask: If one person says that he likes vanilla ice cream but does not like chocolate ice cream, yet his friend says that he likes chocolate ice cream but does not like vanilla ice cream, are those what you would call subjective views or preferences or elements? I myself would call them "personal" preferences, not subjective, but objective (factual) personal preferences. This reminds me of something that Peikoff said somewhere. He said that people who say that "what's true for me is not (necessarily) true for you" are confusing "of" and "for" - if they are not outright subjectivist. (If I understood him correctly.) (Here's a link to Dr. Peikoff's comments on subjectivists in one of his podcasts - Episode 93 - when asked for advice in arguing with a subjectivist. A subjectivist would dismiss this distinction of "of" and "for" as irrelevant.) If a person likes vanilla ice cream then that's an objective fact, and it is as true for the person who likes vanilla ice cream as it is for the person who doesn't like vanilla ice cream. On first reading, that perhaps did not make sense, but here's the point. If a person actually does like vanilla ice crean, then it is true that he likes vanilla ice cream. And, it's true for the other person who doesn't like vanilla ice cream - it's just as true FOR him that the other person does like vanilla ice cream even though it's not true OF him. That's the FOR versus OF distinction. Do you understand and agree with that distinction, and agree that if something is true for a person then it is objectively true even if it is not true of others? I'm not referring to RM, but from memory, I think she made the point that it's a person's sense of life, an artist's or a viewer's, which gives rise to their response, not that, as you say, a sense of life is a valid criteria for esthetic judgement. This is the same as saying, I believe, that emotions, although they are objectively based upon the individual's subconsciously held value judgements, are not a means of knowledge. Sense of life is an emotion (or emotional), not a method of objective evaluation, but a reflection of one's subconscious evaluations, whether those are objective or rational or not. Certainly. I was and am baffled by her saying that Parrish's work was "trash" and by her appraisal of Capuletti's work. Do I think that she was being objective? I'm not certain. I do not know her reasoning for those two evaluations. In many ways I share your own view with respect to her appraisals of Parrish and Capuletti. However, I cannot say whether Miss Rand's evaluations are objective or not. Again, I don't know her reasons for her appraisals. I do remember reading the two things you refer to, that Parrish's work was "trash" and her praise for Capuletti's work. For years, after having read her praise for Capuletti's work, I had not even seen any images of his work, and I wanted to see them myself to see just what it was she found to be so good about them. When I did finally see some of them, I was baffled by her praise for them, at least many of those I saw photos of. I still am. However, Miss Rand (as do some other people) has an account of credibility for me, so to speak. Not to say that I just accept whatever she says as true, but that I have found that she typically had very good reasons for what she had to say. I approach what she says in the same way that I approach other artists, say, who I like. If I admire their work, I'm interested and eager to hear what they have to say. What they say doesn't always make sense, even if only at first, but given that I think that they are worth considering I'm at least interesting in understanding their reasons for their claims. If in time I can find and grasp their reasoning and come to agree with them, great, I've learned. Else, whatever point they may have made stays in the background for me as something to be on the lookout for a better understanding of. This is similar to something that Andrew Loomis, for example, said in his book Fun with a Pencil. He has a page with several (four) childlike, stick-figurish type drawings, and he praises the first one, less so the next two, and the last one he thought was a lost cause. Why, I would "ask." I did not dismiss him even though I did not (at the time) understand why he thought what he did. I realized that I did not understand his reasoning, but I admired him enough to have some confidence that if I can find his reasoning, then I'll understand why he said what he said and very likely then agree with him. So, although I remain baffled by Miss Rand's assessments of Parrish's and Capuletti's works, I'm open to her arguments, or arguments others might present in support of her judgements. If by subjectivity you mean, basically, arbitrary, then I do think that judgements of art can, in principle, be purely objective. If a person starts introducing the arbitrary (baseless assertions as to the meaning of some work of art), then it becomes subjective. I am not certain that I could do a very good job of presenting purely objective judgements of some art. Some judgements would be easy, some not. But in principle I do think it's possible to make a purely objective judgement of art. Can you point me to where I can find Miss Rand's "stated method of objective aesthetic judgement? (Why do you spell it "aesthetic" rather than "esthetic"? Are you in Europe? Just curious, as I understand it's common for Europeans to spell it that way?) And, can you point me to some of those reviews of artwork(s) by Objectivists which "had a pretty high degree of subjectivity smuggled in"? Both would be helpful. I had more or less assumed otherwise, in error, so I'm glad to clear that up. Thanks for the suggested searches. I've done the searches and looked at several of the respective images. Still, this is another case where some examples from you as well as examples of the works that some Objectivists have praised, which you think are similar, would be helpful, just so that I know exactly, or more closely, just what you're saying. I'm interested in this issue, but like you I have limited time to give it or online discussions. Over time however perhaps we can explore this more and both gain a better understanding of the issue(s).

Well then, Howard Roark was a rapist and belonged in prison. Regardless of anything else about him, even were he a great artist, he was an evil human being. Correct? And Dominique? Well right after (if not earlier in her life) she struck Roark across the face with the branch, Roark (or her father, etc.) should have called the authorities and Dominique should have been taken into protective custody, held for psychological evaluation and then perhaps committed to an asylum for the insane. She was obviously a threat to herself and others. Two people get their just deserts. A rapist goes to prison, and if ever released lives out his life with the legal status and stigma and consequences of being a rapist. And a nut case's mental illness is identified and either treated with the latest psychotropic drugs in the hope that she can go on to live some semblance of normal life, or else she remains institutionalized for life. Or, as with Joseph Kennedy, Dominique's father could have properly requested that she be lobotomized, as was the young and rebellious and promiscuous Rosemary Kennedy, an embarrassment to her own father. If there were no cure for her mental illness, then at least she could be managed, loved and cared for. The end.

Thank you, Jonathan, for your reply. I'm trying to understand just where you're coming from, so to speak, so I'll ask a followup question(s). In your view, there's no objectivity with respect to art, or at least no objective standards of good and bad art or of benevolent or inspirational art, etc. Correct? Various people like (or dislike) certain works of art and find them to be good (or bad) or benevolent (or malevolent) or inspirational (or discouraging or non-inspiring), etc., but their various responses are subjective? There is such a thing as art, objectively, in your view, as distinct from other man-made creations, and art can be objectively defined and identified. Correct? (I believe that you have said that you basically agree with Miss Rand's definition of art as a recreation of reality in accordance with an artist's metaphysical value judgements.) I do agree that various people find various works of art to be good, bad, benevolent (or not), inspirational (or not), etc. And, although it's been awhile since I've read the Romantic Manifesto, from memory, Miss Rand does acknowledge that different individuals have different reactions to the same works of art, and she gave examples of differing responses for the same works of art, that those different reactions flowed from the individual's sense of life (or implicit metaphysical value-judgements). (She, however, doesn't say that this makes their responses (or the art) subjective.) You modified your previous statement, given my previous question(s), to: "[T]here have been both evil and good people who have loved the same works of art, and there have been both evil and good people who have hated the same works of art; and, additionally, there have been both evil and good people who have interpreted the same work of art as benevolent and inspirational and have loved it, and there have also been both evil and good people who have interpreted the same work of art as benevolent and inspirational and have hated it." [my bold] So now let me ask this: In your view, are there objective standards for good and evil people? Or, are "good" and "evil" with respect to people (or anything else), as with works of art, simply subjective judgements? And, if that's the case, wouldn't you also have to amend your statement, dropping the "good" and "evil" adjectives (for various people), leaving you to say only that various people have various, subjective, responses to various works of art? Also, I'm curious as to the works of art that you say that some Objectivists like and which are "similar to what the Nazis and commies promoted." Do you have some examples you can post or link to?

There's context and then there's context. There's more to the context, the relevant context, to the "rape" than just the actual "rape" scene itself. The "rape" occurred not too many days after Dominique and Roark first "met" at the quarry, Dominique becoming immediately both obsessed and hostile and disdainful with and towards Roark, hoping that he's a convict and that convicts are whipped (Why the hatred of and towards Roark?), requesting his help (Why his help?) with a "broken" slab of marble (which Roark had to but strike once, to Dominique's futile many strikes, to actually break: "Now it's broken and has to be replaced.") in her own bedroom (not somewhere else in the large house), Roark assuring her that he would have it replaced, but not showing up to do the work himself, infuriating Dominique, who then, when she finds Roark walking alone, ultimately strikes him across the face with a branch (assault and battery?). Later, after the "rape" and after they meet again: "I want to sleep with you. Now, tonight, and at any time you may care to call me. I want your naked body, your skin, your mouth, your hands. I want you--like this--not hysterical with desire--but coldly and consciously--without dignity and without regrets--I want you--I have no self-respect to bargain with me and divide me--I want you--I want you like an animal, or a cat on a fence, or a whore." The thoughts of a shattered rape victim?

"benevolent, inspirational art"? You mean to say that you do in fact think that there is art that is objectively benevolent and inspirational? Seems that, to be consistent with what I understand your view to be, the best you could say is that there are been evil people who loved certain works of art and good people who have hated certain works of art, possibly even those very same works. But "benevolent, inspirational art"? How so?

Texas approves 5 new license plates

That's okay - that Rick Perry ("pointy boots" as one local (Austin, Texas) talk-show host calls him) and many many others think believe that Christian faith made America strong. All we need is to have competing protection agencies and the incentives will be in place to ensure the recognition and respect for rights. We could have a Christian protection agency, an Islamic (Sharia) protection agency, a Libertarian protection agency, and even an Objectivist, among others, protection agency, all competing in the market for rights and freedom.

Okay, if it is a waste of your time, it is a waste of your time and mine as well.

Holding that it is philosophy (fundamental ideas and therefore values) that determines history (including the kind of government societies embrace) does not imply a requirement for philosopher-kings. And gang warfare is a legitimate concern. So, because the libertarians don't flinch from the question means that Rand's "you take it from there" is unsatisfactory? Religionists don't flinch from the irrationality of their belief in the existence of a supernatural being. Therefore arguments against God are unsatisfactory? To whom? To those who hold an arbitrary belief? So what? But this is where I do think that Binswanger gets to the heart of it: there is no market without the protection of individual rights. A market for a market is a contradiction. "Anarcho-capitalism" is an arbitrary construct. (I assume that you disagree.) With respect to the "chicken or egg" (seeming) dilemma that you mentioned previously - without an existing market, there is no wealth to fund and maintain a rights protecting government, but without a government, there is no market, and therefore (somehow) they evolved together - it's a false alternative. There can be a mixed economy after all, an inconsistent recognition and protection of rights. To the extent that rights are recognized and protected, there is a market (even if delimited and hampered), and wealth (less than could be), to support a government, even an inconsistent one (mixed economy). The problem with a mixed economy is that it's an economy in transition, on principle, to totalitarianism. The need for consistency is due to the value of liberty. (I watched the recent Brook debate with David Callahan, co-founder of Demos. Callahan, as have others, said that the mixed economy has worked, and worked well, for many decades now. What's wrong with a mixed economy? And for that matter, what's wrong with slavery? Even slavery "worked" for some time?) Okay, so the questions are: • Why must there be an objective theory of morality? • Does an objective theory of morality lead to constitutionalism? • Can a "market" produce an objective theory of morality and lead to constitutionalism? Correct? To be clear, just what is the "jurisdictional part of the topic" which you think it would be most fruitful to address? The idea of multiple governments (or "protection agencies" with no one having a monopoly on the use of force) within the same geographical area?

Again, you've said that you're playing devil's advocate and that you only want to help Objectivist "respond better" (to the advocates of or arguments for "anarcho-capitalism"). I take that (your "playing devil's advocate") to mean that you are not really the devil (metaphorically), that you do not really agree with the advocates of or the arguments for so-called "anarcho-capitalism," but that you are only playing the role of the "devil" for argument's sake, in an attempt to inform or educate others to the correct view. Your claim that you only want to "help us Objectivists respond better" lends support to that take and indicates that you too are an Objectivist, that you agree with the Objectivist position that a government with the monopoly on the use of force is necessary in order to protect rights. You obviously (to me at least) think that Objectivism or Objectivists have failed to argue convincingly against "anarcho-capitalism." What then do you think is the proper argument against "anarcho-capitalism"?

Certainly, throughout history markets and governments have evolved together. The issue is not one of "the chicken or the egg." There is no market unless it is voluntary (free from initiated force). As markets (spheres of voluntary exchanges) evolved, the requirements of government (of protecting rights) evolved, from, say, simple means of identifying and protecting rights involved in short-ranged value exchanges to more complicated means of identifying and protecting rights involved in long-ranged value exchanges (i.e., contracts). To the extent to which governments have protected rights, there is a market; to the extent that governments have not protected rights, there is no market, at least with respect to, or sanctioned by, the government. Sure, there are and may be "black markets," but "black markets" exist only to the extent that government fails to enforce its bans. "Black markets" have no protection via the government. The essential issue is that there is no market except to the extent that individuals are free from the initiation of force - unless and to the extent that there is a government that protects rights. That's the whole (and sole proper) purpose of government - institutionalized force used to combat the initiation of force and therefore create a sphere of freedom (from initiated force). As Dr. Binswanger said, "there is no free market until after force has been excluded." The reason I mentioned Libertarians is that it is their view - that freedom (or liberty) is a self-evident, axiomatic, or intrinsic value with no need of philosophical validation - that has given rise to any discussion at all about the possibility of competing protection agencies absent a government with a monopoly on force: Everyone (mostly) wants and values freedom as a self-evident good. Competition leads to improvements. Therefore we need competing "governments" (within the same geographical area) to ensure freedom. But for a relative few tyrants, it seems, everyone wants and values liberty, and were there a market for "protection agencies" with no government monopoly on force, then the incentives for freedom would be on the side of ensuring the protection of rights. You have said that you are playing devil's advocate and that you only want to help Objectivist respond better (to the "anarcho-capitalists"). What then is your response to the idea of competing governments (or so-called "protection agencies") within the same geographical area? Objectivists have some obligation to shoot down the arbitrary idea of "anarcho-capitalism"? Why? There have been experiences with various governments through history and today, with some giving rise to increased freedom. Governments can and have, at times, done well in protecting rights. (Why? What is it that really gives rise to a right's respecting and protecting government?) But where and when has there ever been anything approximating "anarcho-capitalism" to indicate that there could be a "market" for "protection agencies" (of rights) with no government monopoly on force and which would lead to and ensure the protection of rights? There are many countries in the world, each with its own government, all in "competition" with each other. If competing governments were the key, were to create the right incentives for the protection of rights, then why has it not done so?

Not presuming to speak for Mr. Miovas, but he said that one cannot rely on "men's rationality, or good-will, or good intentions to secure legal objectivity" (as you put it). Instead we need a government of objectively defined laws protecting rights, objectively identified, a government delimited to its proper function. [my bold] What market? You're implying that there's a market prior to the existence of government. Is there? (And what makes you think that at least some anarcho-capitalists "wouldn't necessarily disagree with this desired goal"? What is their desired goal?) "Anarchism vs. Objectivism" by Harry Binswanger The most twisted evasion of the "libertarian" anarchists in this context is their view that disputes concerning rights could be settled by "competition" among private force-wielders on the "free market." This claim represents a staggering stolen concept: there is no free market until after force has been excluded. Their approach cannot be applied even to a baseball game, where it would mean that the rules of the game will be defined by whoever wins it. This has not prevented the "libertarian" anarchists from speaking of "the market for liberty" (i.e., the market for the market). [my bold] Again, what market? Why are there warring gangs now, such as with drug dealers or cartels? Why were there the turf wars in Chicago, for instance, during prohibition? Because the government does not or would not recognize the legitimacy of competing governments? True. "It's the Spending, Stupid" by Dr. Hurd: In the end, politicians are evading what Americans by and large don’t want to face. It’s easy to blame and condemn politicians. But the politicians who know it’s career suicide to address spending are right. This wouldn’t be true if the majority of Americans were willing to face the truth. The government we have is a reflection of the philosophy dominating our culture. A government cannot stand in opposition to the dominant philosophy of the culture. There is no way to design one that can do so. This is the fundamental flaw of Libertarianism, of taking Rand's non-initiation of force principle as some self-evident axiom (i.e., "most [even if not all] people agree that initiating force is wrong") as the only basis required for a proper government, denying the need of moral philosophy (which rests on metaphysics and epistemology) in order to have a proper government and society. (See Peter Schwartz's "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty")

Seen on Creeping Sharia ("Saudi Arabia to run out of virgins within 10 years"): "Saudis fear there will be ‘no more virgins’ and people will turn gay if female drive ban is lifted" "Repealing a ban on women drivers in Saudi Arabia would result in ‘no more virgins’, the country’s religious council has warned. "A ‘scientific’ report claims relaxing the ban would also see more Saudis - both men and women - turn to homosexuality and pornography."

Richard Salsman comes out for Mitt Romney as the best of the Republican alternatives in this interesting Forbes article: GOP Conservatives - Not Romney - Are The Real Flip-Floppers

The self-contradictions of the Bible from Freespace (Timothy Sandefur's blog): "A cool poster. I remember my Greek professor in college telling me, rightly, that the only people who believe every word of the Bible are people who haven't read it." Following the "cool poster" link, there are links to two printable versions of the poster (PDF): 22” x 33” or 33” x 44”

Dr. Peikoff has now weighed in on this topic in his most recent podcast, Episode 189 — November 7, 2011: 14:14: "'What does one mean by the term "love at first sight"? Doesn't love require a cognitive appraisal of the epistemology and content of the object of one's affection?'"

Thank you for mentioning this. I have sent a message to the Ayn Rand Bookstore letting them know that the debate has been uploaded in full to YouTube, presumably without permission. There's a sad irony here. A debate on the principle underlying freedom has been made available in violation of those very principles.

What you mean by making a 'floating abstraction' of love? Seems then that you do in fact think that love at first sight is impossible? The question is not whether love at first sight is a precondition of love, nor is the question whether love at first sight is the norm or the common. The question is whether love at first sight is possible, even if it is rare. Since you seem to hold that love at first sight is not possible, how much time is required to actually love? And just what has to come with that time? This all reminds me of the view of Curly (played by Jack Palance) in City Slickers revealed in his discussion with Mitch (played by Billy Crystal): Mitch: You ever been in love? Curly: Once. I was driving a herd across the panhandle. Texas. Passed near this little dirt farm right about sundown. Out in the field was this young woman, working down in the dirt. Just about then she stood up to stretch her back. She was wearing a little cotton dress, and the settin' sun was right behind her, showing the shape that God had give her. Mitch: What happened? Curly: I just turned around and rode away. Mitch: Why? Curly: I figured it wasn't gonna get any better than that. Mitch: But you could have been, you know...with her. Curly: Been with lots of women. Mitch: Yeah, but you know, she could have been the love of your life. Curly: She is. Meaning what? That love at first sight is but a self-deluded projection of one's ideals and values onto another person, and with time, in actually getting to know that person, one can only become disillusioned? That "familiarity breeds contempt"? In other words, fiction is fiction and can't really reveal any truth(s)? With fiction we get a god's eye view of the situation as well as the characters involved, so we understand more that we typically do when we observe things (like two people who have just met and yet are strongly attracted to each other). The same insights, given to us in fiction by the author, normally would require more effort to gain. In everyday life, if you see two people who've just met and seem greatly attracted to each other, you are not privy to all that is there, to what's known to the two people involved, only to what's directly available to you, so it may seem to be only a superficial attraction. I agree.

Thank you.

Yes, and that "click" is when that person fits. They are the (or a) person you've been looking for, having formed some idea(s) of just who you're looking for, and then suddenly they are there. And when it goes well, the more you get to know them, the more they "click."

I think that there are moments (rare) within certain contexts and actions that can reveal a great deal about a person, enough to actually fall in love with them "at first sight" (in a very short amount of time, almost instantaneously). This is not a matter of looks only (so-called "physical attraction"), but looks and actions that reveal something profound about a person. I had something else in mind, but I don't remember it well enough (from Valery Panov's autobiography, To Dance), so instead, as an example from fiction, remember in Braveheart after young William Wallace's father is killed and just after they had buried him? The young girl, Murron, pulled back from following her parents away from the grave, and then she picked a flower and brought it to young William. Without saying a word, she handed him the flower. Later, after many years away with his uncle, he returned, and he told her, "I love you. Always have. I wanna marry you." Perhaps there are better examples, even in fiction, but that's one that came to mind.