What is the O'ist view on love?

[WI_Rifleman]

Love is the most powerful human emotion that there is. It can make people do irrational things. Many times when I talk to people about how reason, not emotion, is the only way to look at the world, they bring up love. In many people's viewpoints love is irrational. I have attempted to argue with others that in order for love to be of value it must be rational. My friend once offered me this argument: "Love is irrational. Love is good. Therefore some irrationallity must be good." How do I counter this? What is the Objective view of love?

[BurgessLau]

Love is the most powerful human emotion that there is. [...] What is the Objective view of love?

Others in this forum will have many insights to offer. In the meantime, you might start with reading The Ayn Rand Lexicon entries for "Emotion" and "Love." The latter has four pages of excerpts from various writings by Ayn Rand.

P. S. -- Most threads bog down because there are no definitions of key terms at the beginning. Perhaps you or someone else will offer the Objectivist definitions of "emotion" and "love."

[Edited to add P. S.]

Edited January 27, 2005 by BurgessLau

[the tortured one]

The way I know it, love is a celebration of shared values. Sex incidently, is the physical manifestation of this celebration. Observe Hank Rearden, how little respect he had for Lillian, and how passionately he loved Dagny (anyone else have tears in their eyes when Dagny saw him in his plane looking for her? I could mentally picture the duress in Hank's face.) Similarly, look who Lillian ended up having sex with: Jim Taggart.

The idea that love is irrational is false, check your premises. A girl who stays with her boyfriend even if he beats her is not love, it is the woman craving attention and getting it from the wrong places. A man who forgoes a high paying job to pursue a marriage with the woman he loves is not irrational, he values his relationship with his partner more than that job. Anyone who says love is all emotion and irrationality is probably an altruist, be careful of what they say.

The concept of Egoism is rather complex and must be interpreted carefully. Egoism = selfishness = rational self-interest. A conclusion I have come to on my own is that Egoism is quite different but often confused for Egotism, which is irrational self-interest. Be aware of the difference when dealing with others.

There is nothing more rational than genuine love between two people.

<Edited by Elle (mod) for a few typos >

Edited February 20, 2005 by Elle

[Inspector]

The simplest answer to your question is that love -- real, lasting, PROPER love -- is perfectly rational. Just as people can have other emotions irrationally (a ubiquitous example being hate) so too can they love irrationally. But irrational love, like any other emotion based on unreason, is BAD (not, as the people you mention suggest, good).

Only the kind love that has truth, reason, and reality to back it up is any GOOD.

[A=A]

I spend a lot of time thinking about love and how it relates to objectivism. I am in the process of learning and understanding about love as a person dedicated to reason and rationality. I've had to un-learn past ideas and feelings I had on the subject.

Do you think it's possible for there to be a difference between loving someone and being in love with someone? Would the difference be platonic love verses romantic love?

[BurgessLau]

I spend a lot of time thinking about love and how it relates to objectivism.

For anyone: What does "love" mean? Please define it.

What does "emotion" mean? Please define it.

(See Post 2 for references.)

P. S. -- The proper spelling of the name of Ayn Rand's philosophy is "Objectivism," with a capital "O." See the Forum Rules for spelling and grammar.

BASIC QUESTIONS FORUM MODERATOR

[MisterSwig]

My friend once offered me this argument: "Love is irrational. Love is good. Therefore some irrationallity must be good." How do I counter this? What is the Objective view of love?

You counter it by checking his premise for him. Ask him: Why is love irrational?

He is merely asserting something to be true: "love is irrational." Make him prove it. Don't be sidetracked by his ridiculous conclusion. Challenge his unsupported premise. Trip him at the knees.

Most likely, he will give you some examples of people in love who act irrationally. Then you point out that people who are in love also act rationally. Love, therefore, cannot be the cause of irrationality. Otherwise, everyone in love would act irrationally.

If he challenges the idea that many people in love act rationally, then you are dealing with a very dishonest individual. You are probably wasting your time trying to prove this fact to him.

Now, if your opponent is honest, you'll probably get around to the deeper issue, which is the nature of emotions and their proper relation to reason and values. I won't go in to all of that here. Search through the threads. I'm sure that topic has already been explored on a previous thread or two.

My informal view of love is that it is a positive emotional reaction to the experience of one's highest values. It is a good thing.

[AwakeAndFree]

As an emotion, love is not always rational. But when it is irrational, in essence, against your better judgement - it is an evil, and not a value.

Loving someone against your better judgement must be the worst torture possible to man.

Love is only good when it is in harmony with reason. So once again, rationality is the basis of all virtues.

[AMERICONORMAN]

The way I know it, love is a celebration of shared values. Sex incidently, is the physicaly manifestation of this celebration. Observe Hank Rearden, how little respect he had for Lillian, and how passionatly he loved Dagny (anyone else have tears in their eyes when Dagny saw him in his plane looking for her? I could mentally picture the duress in Hank's face.) Similarly, look who Lillian ended up having sex with: Jim Taggart.

Yes! Rearden's sole search party brought tears and choking. That scene is one of the best achievements in world literature.

Also, for the man who forgoes a high paying job to be with his love, he will not only get the spiritual wealth of being in love but the motivational inspiration in one's work from being with the loved one, that will lead to financial wealth. For example, I met someone recently who makes me melt, shiver, and shake often, it's a feeling I haven't experienced for many years. My creativity has improved quite a bit since the meeting and communication. The shaking, etc., is not irrational, it is an indicator for me to take a close look and seek this person. It doesn't necessarily mean that I love but that here's someone to look into, and get into. My intuition can be right but by it alone I cannot declare genuine love just yet.

And the distinction between egoism and egotism is a good one to keep in mind, and it's good that Rand made it in one of her introductions to FH. Egotism is what an Objectivist can attack, especially when dealing in polemics.

Americo.

[AMERICONORMAN]

I spend a lot of time thinking about love and how it relates to objectivism.  I am in the process of learning and understanding about love as a person dedicated to reason and rationality.  I've had to un-learn past ideas and feelings I had on the subject. 

Do you think it's possible for there to be a difference between loving someone and being in love with someone?  Would the difference be platonic love verses romantic love?

Read my essay in the member's essay section, "A Motor Like Mine: A Discussion on Romantic Love".

Americo.

[AMERICONORMAN]

As an emotion, love is not always rational. But when it is irrational, in essence, against your better judgement - it is an evil, and not a value.

Loving someone against your better judgement must be the worst torture possible to man.

Love is only good when it is in harmony with reason. So once again, rationality is the basis of all virtues.

Yes, it is a great torture. This is true. But it is nothing that wine and brandy can't cure. The last sentence was irony of course. Such a conflict can easily lead one to drinking, as the surface cause of it, because you can thus feel "Byronic" in your longing for you "love". The pain seems to be proof of genuine love.

But an even greater torture must be feeling completely impotent alone, without being able to blame someone else for one's helplessness. An anxiety attack, I think it is called.

Americo.

[acapier]

A man who forgoes a high paying job to pursue a marriage with the woman he loves is not irrational, he values his relationship with his partner more than that job.

Objectivism would refute this since a man's (or woman's) own life is held as his standard of value, not his/her relationship to another. Ayn Rand believed that one's career should be held above, and independent of any romantic relationship, or the consequences would be a relationship of dependence. It happens all the time where one partner sacrifices his/her career for the good of the relationship and ends up resenting his/her partner.

Let's use the cliched "two ships passing in the night" metaphor for a moment. Say two ships travelling in opposite directions meet. One ship decides that instead of continuing on toward its original destination it will follow the other ship. Upon arrival in New York the "following" ship's passengers become irritated that they're not in France as they had wanted. A relationship such as this will result in resentment of one or both of the "ships" involved.

Now take two other ships who have left from different ports. They eventually cross paths, but they find that they are both travelling in the same direction. Upon arrival in New York (the original destination of both ships) they find that their journey together was that much better for it (the relationship).

The Objectivist view of love is that it is a "supplement" to one's life, not a condition of. One must already have his/her values, character, and goals in place before any proper romantic relationship can be had, since (as was mentioned earlier) proper "love" is one's values and character embodied in that of another. Anything you'd call "love" in someone who doesn't hold your same values is anything but.

[TomL]

For anyone: What does "love" mean? Please define it.

What does "emotion" mean? Please define it.

Love is the emotional response of one man to the virtues of another man. ('man' in this context is genderless).

Emotion is the mechanism of man's consciousness, through which the automatic results of his value judgements, integrated by his subconscious, estimate that which further his values or attacks them.

[TomL]

The way I know it, love is a celebration of shared values. Sex incidently, is the physicaly manifestation of this celebration.

That sets aside the fact of love without sex. I am a man -- there is certainly a possibility for me to love another man -- but I won't want to have sex with him.

There is a difference between "love" and the more specific "romantic love". As long as we are talking about the former, the discussion should be more generic than references to sex.

[TomL]

Do you think it's possible for there to be a difference between loving someone and being in love with someone?  Would the difference be platonic love verses romantic love?

The first question is a question of semantics. Usually, when a difference is identified between "love" and "being in love", the difference is love vs. romantic love.

Yes, its possible to love someone without wanting to have sex with them. Two men for example, who share many of the same values and who may be very close friends, can in fact love each other. Doesn't mean they want to have sex.

Romantic love, or "being in love" with someone, involves valuation of the feminine by the masculine. In romantic love, you add to the already established definition of love, not replace it. Romantic love then becomes an integrated response of mind and body, i.e. of love and sexual desire.

Note that I have refrained from calling "love" "platonic love", it is just "love". The only kind of non-platonic love is romantic, and since something is being added to "love" in the new concept and there are no other types, further differentiation is unnecessary.

To be precise, one should not use "love" by itself when "romantic love" is the intended concept, unless there is a framing context that conveys that meaning (e.g. saying "I love you" to your wife has different meaning than to your best friend).

[the tortured one]

Objectivism would refute this since a man's (or woman's) own life is held as his standard of value, not his/her relationship to another.

did Ayn Rand write of this specifically? Because that wasn't the impression I got from reading Atlas Shrugged. Observe Hank and Dagny's relationship. If they were to truly act in the best interest of their job, then the proper act should have been to sever all ties with each other. Their love eventually led to the nationalization of Rearden Metal.

I do not buy the idea that the purpose of man's life is to amass as much money as possible. If that was the case then Howard Roark should have simply cut the corners of his personal philosophy, he could have made lots of money like Peter Keating did, and would not have had to resort to working manual labor.

Besides, love is not sacrificing yourself. Love is mutually beneficial selfishness .

[TomL]

Objectivism would refute this since a man's (or woman's) own life is held as his standard of value, not his/her relationship to another. Ayn Rand believed that one's career should be held above, and independent of any romantic relationship, or the consequences would be a relationship of dependence. It happens all the time where one partner sacrifices his/her career for the good of the relationship and ends up resenting his/her partner.

Objectivism would not refute that, but indeed upholds it. It is entirely possible for the value in another person to be so great that continuing life with them, however rich, would be a sacrifice. Ayn Rand writes as much on several occasions. I will cite my sources later when I am at home and have my books available.

I challenge acapier to find and cite any sources to back up his claim that "Ayn Rand believe that one's career should be held above, and independent of any romantic relationship".

Let's use the cliched "two ships passing in the night" metaphor for a moment.

Let's not, but instead keep our discussions limited to this world. Ships are not people, and passengers are not philosophic values to them.

The Objectivist view of love is that it is a "supplement" to one's life, not a condition of.

I do not share that view at all. It is perfectly legitimate to place love and even romantic love in a position of being a required value to one's life. How you go about obtaining that value, though, must be done rationally. You cannot simply pick someone at random and declare love because you feel you need it.

You must instead build your own character, identify those qualities of character which you yourself possess and you admire in other people, identify those qualities of the opposite sex which you find attractive, and then go out and find all of those things embodied in one person. Noone said it would be easy, but it's quite doable. I am married based on that process.

[EC]

An example of TomL's above statement would be John Galt saying that he would immediately commit suicide if the government was to kill Dagny in AS.

By the way when I was at the mall yesterday there were people who were handing out religious literature. Two walked up to me, startling me because I wasn't paying attention because I was lost in thought. She handed me a small poster and in exchange for it (what a deal!) she requested a donation for her "mission?". I handed it back and stated that I was an Atheist and therefore not interested. This set her talking. She took back the poster and handed me saw other paper she thought I would find more interesting. Anyway, she started asking me many questions trying to figure out why I was an atheist. She was assuming that I just didn't like church as such from what I could tell. Being that I didn't want to get into a philosophical debate standing in the middle of the mall I tried to end the conversation as quick as I could. The part that links this story to the topic of this thread is that in trying to quickly present her religion to me she kept saying "God is Love, God is Love," and then she would stop and look at me like I would at least agree "to that". Of course I didn't and quickly excused myself. One thing I think all Objectivists can agree on is that besides just being a blatent violation of the law of identity, "God is Love" would be an EXTREMELY poor definition of the concept of love anyway.

[acapier]

I challenge acapier to find and cite any sources to back up his claim that "Ayn Rand believe that one's career should be held above, and independent of any romantic relationship".

Leonard Peikoff in Ayn Rand, A Sense of Life, during the segment entitled "What is Romantic Love".

I'll ask you this: If Ayn Rand had to make the decision between her relationship with Frank O'Connor or writing "Atlas Shrugged" which do you think she would have chosen? My guess would be the latter.

You must instead build your own character, identify those qualities of character which you yourself possess and you admire in other people, identify those qualities of the opposite sex which you find attractive, and then go out and find all of those things embodied in one person. Noone said it would be easy, but it's quite doable. I am married based on that process.

This is what I said (and someone before me). However, you cannot base a relationship solely on each other's love for one another. I might also add that you don't necessarily "go out" and find it, it's just something that happens or doesn't. It should have no bearing on your own happiness.

I do not buy the idea that the purpose of man's life is to amass as much money as possible. If that was the case then Howard Roark should have simply cut the corners of his personal philosophy, he could have made lots of money like Peter Keating did, and would not have had to resort to working manual labor.

Objectivism would not refute that, but indeed upholds it. It is entirely possible for the value in another person to be so great that continuing life with them, however rich, would be a sacrifice.

Don't confuse "career" with "wealth"; one is what you choose to do for a living, the other is what you gain from it; but let me just say that you can't buy a loaf of bread with love, no matter how great and wonderful it is.

Remember, in the end the tables are turned and Roark does become very wealthy; Keating becomes known as a fraud (something no one could have accused of Roark). In addition, it is only because of Roark's integrity in his work and character that he is able to have the romantic love that he desires. His relationship with Dominique is possible because of his work, not in spite of it.

Observe Hank and Dagny's relationship. If they were to truly act in the best interest of their job, then the proper act should have been to sever all ties with each other. Their love eventually led to the nationalization of Rearden Metal.

But like all the characters in Rand's novels (save the main hero) they are slightly flawed individuals. The nationalization is not a condemnation of their relationship, but a condemnation of the government's abuse of power. Let me also say that they loved one another, but they were not "in" love; that was saved by Dagny for John Galt.

The Objectivist view of love is that it is a "supplement" to one's life, not a condition of.

I do not share that view at all. It is perfectly legitimate to place love and even romantic love in a position of being a required value to one's life.

Then you are not independent. You're saying that in order to value your own life (to be happy) it must include the intimate (not necessarily sexual) lives of others. I'm not saying that having or keeping people whom you love should not be of value, but it should not be required for the happiness of your own life. It supplements what already exists. Also, you're implicitly saying that if a loved one dies or otherwise leaves your life then your life becomes less valuable. Yes, it may be heartbreaking, but it doesn't decrease your value!

I said it earlier, and I'll say it again: Love (no matter how great) does not provide for your basic survival. You can't eat it, drink it, clothe or shelter yourself with it. What, then, does provide this? Working and otherwise being productive (i.e. have a career and making money). That's not to say that everyone should walk around with dollar signs in their eyes, but one (if he/she is an Objectivist) must hold their career as the utmost value (even above romantic love).

[B. Royce]

However, once having found the love of one's life, and experiencing him or her as the highest reward for the achievement of one's character, one might no longer wish to go on living when that person dies.

[B. Royce]

Further, having the love of one's life means being able to fully experience the joy and pleasure of one's mind and character as an objective value. That is not dependency, any more than is a work of art one loves, which is an objectification of one's values, a dependency.

[TomL]

Leonard Peikoff in Ayn Rand, A Sense of Life, during the segment entitled "What is Romantic Love".

I'll ask you this: If Ayn Rand had to make the decision between her relationship with Frank O'Connor or writing "Atlas Shrugged" which do you think she would have chosen?  My guess would be the latter.

I would say that that choice would never have presented itself in reality, because if it had, then Ayn Rand would have made a mistake in either choosing to write, or choosing to marry Frank O'Connor. But if you would like to assert that in general, given such a possibility of error, for anyone anywhere, that the mistake will always have been to marry the spouse: I would say that in that case, *both* are mistakes. Because without the certainty of career, one has no rational basis for engaging in romantic activity in the first place.

So no. Ayn Rand first knew what kind of person she was, and then sought the same kind of person (to what degrees and specifics I cannot say) and found them in Frank O'Connor. For O'Connor to then somehow force such a decision later is both arbitrary and unfathomable given the prior knowledge that she was selecting Frank O'Connor based on what she already knew of herself.

This is what I said (and someone before me).  However, you cannot base a relationship solely on each other's love for one another.

Sure you can, if that love is already based upon real, rational values. Love is not and cannot be divorced from its causes. Love is the emotional response of one man's values to the virtues of another, and you cannot say that those values and virtues no longer exist once the "love" exists. Who would base a romantic relationship on anything other than love (which is always based implicitly on some shared values/virtues of the two involved)?

I might also add that you don't necessarily "go out" and find it, it's just something that happens or doesn't.  It should have no bearing on your own happiness.

Part of finding the right person means finding yourself first. You must choose your career first, you will get no argument from me on that point. The romance is based largely in part on that. But that doesn't mean that once you are ready and you know what to look for, that you cannot go out and actively search for it.

Then you are not independent.  You're saying that in order to value your own life (to be happy) it must include the intimate (not necessarily sexual) lives of others.  I'm not saying that having or keeping people whom you love should not be of value, but it should not be required for the happiness of your own life.  It supplements what already exists.  Also, you're implicitly saying that if a loved one dies or otherwise leaves your life then your life becomes less valuable.  Yes, it may be heartbreaking, but it doesn't decrease your value!

Ridiculous, and I would implore you to withhold judgement on my independence until we conclude the thread.

Yes, in order to attain the greatest happiness possible, sometime in my life between now and the day I die, I require a successful romantic relationship. There is nothing dependent about that. I would even argue that one cannot be truly happy without one. Imagine you find the right career, most of your major goals are satisified ... and you are sitting there alone with noone to share it with. Tell me how you feel. Happy? You ought to be very happy. But you'll also be something else: very lonely.

I will also state that I have done everything I have claimed can be done in this thread. I made myself, identified what I wanted, and went out actively seeking it. I found it, married it, and I'm even happier as a result. So I am not just talking the talk here, I have walked this walk.

That being said, I would agree that you cannot hold a romantic relationship as a goal divorced from your other goals. All the goals of your lifetime must be tied together, and they must be put in the proper priority, if you are to have any sort of success.

Lastly, I have not implied nor would I ever that the loss of my spouse would automatically in itself lessen the value of my life. If she were gone, I will still have had her for some period, and that fits with my goal just fine. I would always be able to remember her, and that would be enough.

That's not to say that everyone should walk around with dollar signs in their eyes, but one (if he/she is an Objectivist) must hold their career as the utmost value (even above romantic love).

I agree. One cannot have proper romantic love without making the proper career choices. But to say that you cannot make romance a necessary goal for your life's happiness is not right. Everything else being equal, a successful romantic relationship is very fullfilling, and there is no reason to exclude it from your life's plan and just wait for it to happen by chance.

[TomL]

I might also add that you don't necessarily "go out" and find it, it's just something that happens or doesn't.

I will argue further on this point that it is impossible for it to "just happen". A successful, rational romantic relationship takes tremendous effort to both establish and maintain. If you do not put some effort into seeking it and achieving it, it won't happen on its own.

Then you are not independent.  You're saying that in order to value your own life (to be happy) it must include the intimate (not necessarily sexual) lives of others. 

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying I have to find the person whom I can love to the fullest extent I am able. It does not mean I require that she love me back -- that would be dependence.

[JMeganSnow]

I'm not saying that at all.  I'm saying I have to find the person whom I can love to the fullest extent I am able.  It does not mean I require that she love me back -- that would be dependence.

Bravo.

Acapier, you are essentially saying that, if you want anything, you are dependant on it. How is a romantic relationship different from a career? Because the object of your affections is another person? What if your career is, say, teaching? Are you dependant on your students because you could not teach without them?

Are you dependant on your boss, or your customers, if you could not have your career without THEM?

What about a woman who makes motherhood her career? Is she dependant on her children? Her husband, because she could not have or support children without him? If she is rational, she remains independant; she could change her chosen avocation (not without some significant pain); she could continue on with her life.

I think you regard romantic love as some kind of sick need that must be fulfilled, it is not. It is the greatest, highest, most ennobling emotion one could have or ever hope to have. The fact that it is a response to virtues present in another person doesn't somehow make it a sideline to life.

[acapier]

I have never said that love (of any degree) is not, or should not be something to hold as a great value. What I have said, however, is that it is not the greatest value that one should hold. The top value of anyone's life should be their work, their achievement.

Howard Roark (Ayn Rand), in The Fountainhead: "The creator lives for his work. He needs no other men. His primary goal is within himself..."

"The basic need of the creator is independence. The reasoning mind cannot work under any form of compulsion. It cannot be curbed, sacrificed or subordinated to any consideration whatsoever. It demands total independence in function and in motive. To a creator, all relations with men are secondary..."

Further, Leonard Peikoff in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand(Chapter 8: Virtues):

"The independent man who lives in society learns from others and may choose to work jointly with them, but the essence of his learning and his work is the process of thought, which he has to perform alone. He needs others with whom to trade, but the trade is merely an exchange of creations, and his primary concern is the act of creating; his concern is his own work. He may love another person and even decide that he does not care to live without his beloved; but he chooses his love as a complement to his work, and he chooses by his own rational standards, for the sake of his own happiness."

Everyone's said that "love" is the embodiment of your own values and character in that of another; that's true. What you're not looking at, however, is that your work and achievements are the embodiment of your own values and character in the physical world. One can say that they value this, that, and the other; but it's only through the process of creation that one can prove it. When one can do this the love of another (who shares your values) is easily found.

As a side note: Never confuse being "alone" with being "lonely".