Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

What is the O'ist view on love?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

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.

This is true. However, the poster you quote says "job" and there is a difference between "job" and "career."

If two people meet online and live halfway around the world from each other, and they fall in love and decide to get together in real life, one of them will have to leave their job. They'd have to get a new job at their new location.

However, if two people become romantically involved and person A decides that they don't like person B's career (e.g. because they're on call or travelling too much, or because they're in physical danger, etc.), and person B gives up their career for person A - THAT is where you develop problems. Person B would be giving up their purpose in life, a part of their identity. You'd have to question whether person A really loved person B.

To make it more concrete, Mary's husband Fred travels for work. He sells truck parts, and he loves trucks. The rumble of an engine makes him feel alive, and he loves to get his hands greasy. However, Fred's away from home a lot and Mary misses him. If he got a different job where he sold truck parts out of a store, he would be able to spend more time with Mary without giving up what he enjoys. They would both be happy spending more time together. However, if he went back to school and became an accountant in order to please her, he would be making a fundamental change and giving up his value of the rumbling engine. Mary would miss the gleam in his eye when he talks about his engines. Neither of them would be happy with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The way I understant it is as follows.... I have yet to fully read Ayn Rands viewpoints on the subject, so maybe from the point of Objectiivism I am not entirely correct., but anyway...

True love is an attachment to someone based on their values and qualities, values and qualities that you share and consider of importance. Many might argue that sometimes people seem to fall in love for no reason, however this is clearly absurd, as the level of emotional attachment required for love is clearly dependent on some damn good reason, and saying that there is none is just avoiding the issue of course.

Now, many people you will have observed confuse love and dependence. Love involves a mutually beneficial exchanges that enrich both of the particpants lives. Now would could possibly be so irrational about that?

Dependence on the other hand is one person leeching benefit off the other without providing return, and at times love and dependence can be seen in every relationship. Love is not something that is observable at all times, so many people confuse that and such for love and incorrectly use it as an argument that love is irrational.

That and the argument that "love is irrational, love is good, and therefore some irrationality must be good" is plainly absurd anyway. Even a good thing is at times irrational, that does not mean that the irrational components of it are good, or that irrationality in any way contributes to something being good, as it is hardly a postiive thing. It does nothing 'goood', so cannot sensibly be defined as good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That and the argument that "love is irrational, love is good, and therefore some irrationality must be good" is plainly absurd anyway.  Even a good thing is at times irrational, that does not mean that the irrational components of it are good, or that irrationality in any way contributes to something being good, as it is hardly a postiive thing.

That's a pretty good understanding of the matter, especially since you say you haven't read much of Ayn Rand's works. If you're already thinking like the above, you're in for a real treat when you can get some reading done! Enjoy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question on the subject, but not yet discussed. If I should start a new thread, let me know. Since we have only covered romantic love so far, I was wondering about the objectivity of a different kind of love. I suppose family love is the name, I'm not quite sure what to call it. The love between a mother and child, or between brothers. A mother/father may be displeased with the way their child acts, but rarely do they stop loving the child. This I am guessing, because I am not a father (and certainly not a mother) but I do know that brothers love each other differently than they do anybody else. My dad had a talk with me a while ago that basically said I couldn't hold my brother to the same standard of perfection/morality that I hold myself and my friends, ie I had to like my brother and do things with him even if he wasn't perfect, (or even good by my standard.) I dismissed most of the ideas and handed my dad "The Cult Of Moral Greyness" in The Voice of Reason.

My brother would not be my friend if we were not related; but since we are, I love him (sometimes :P ). I generally try to pick out his good characteristics and focus on those rather then his bad ones. My brother is not where near as bad as Rearden's, but Rearden did put up with his brother, and mother, more than he would have most people.

So, since that ramble didn't actually ask any questions... :D

1. Is a mother's love for her child rational and objective? Does it have to be?

2. Does love between brothers have to be rational and objective to be moral?

3. Is it rational to love someone simply because of blood relations?

The Internet ate the first copy of this post, so if it's confused let me know. I will clarify, but I don't have time right now. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Is a mother's love for her child rational and objective? Does it have to be?

2. Does love between brothers have to be rational and objective to be moral?

3. Is it rational to love someone simply because of blood relations?

1. Yes. A mother's (or father's, I suppose) love for her child is equivalent in motive and purpose to someone's love for their life's work. At the beginning, when the child is still developing, this is more nearly love for the great (but yet unformed) potential within the child; a mother views her child's every act of gaining new knowledge, of learning new skills, of accomplishing new feats, as a deep, personal triumph, a feeling that persists long after the child is self-sufficient.

2. Yes, it has to be rational and objective. All moral love must be rational and objective. It is a fearsome kind of immorality for your father to demand that you act against your judgement because your brother is, well, biologically related to you. Keep in mind that there are levels and levels of affection, and it is perfectly rational for you to retain a certain amount of liking for him on the basis of long mutual experience (do good experiences outweigh the bad?). Love is not an on/off switch . . . it is not a salve for anyone's wounds, a cure for evils, it is an emotion, and all emotions have varying degrees of intensity.

3. No, because this is a reversal of the definition of love. Love is properly a response to your values embodied in the person of another. Genetic inheritence is not a "value" . . . it is not open to choice and thus, morally, is a null. To conclude that someone has value because of something they have no control over is to defeat the very purpose of morality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love involves a mutually beneficial exchanges that enrich both of the particpants lives.

You were good up to here. Love does not require that your feelings for the other be returned. What you gain is a selfish pleasure that does not depend on how the other person feels about you. If it is in any way given in order to receive, then it is at least in some part, dependence.

The rest of what you said was essentially correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Is a mother's love for her child rational and objective? Does it have to be?

2. Does love between brothers have to be rational and objective to be moral?

3. Is it rational to love someone simply because of blood relations?

1. Until the child is no longer a child. After the child is grown and begins to make choices, the mother is free to reevaluate the offspring based on his character. To continue to "love" a child who happens to also be a 35 year-old axe murderer is a travesty I cannot imagine attempting to validate.

2. If it is to exist, then yes. Otherwise, it isn't 'love', but something else. There is no "genetic" component in the definition. It is an emotion, and emotions do not depend on genetic code. They depend on volitional consciousness, and its consequences, only.

3. Not a chance, and I contend that you can't even do it. You cannot "choose" to love someone, you have to feel it, and feelings are not chosen. You have to actually go through the motions of programming your subconscious properly, and it doesn't happen overnight. The process includes identifying your own values, strengthening them and knowing that they are good.

When you feel that you are good in general, you will begin to love yourself. Only then can you be ready to truly love other people. It is a first-handed emotion only. There are plenty of people who pretend, or who misidentify desire as love, but their error does not convert desire into love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. Not a chance, and I contend that you can't even do it.  You cannot "choose" to love someone, you have to feel it, and feelings are not chosen.  You have to actually go through the motions of programming your subconscious properly, and it doesn't happen overnight.  The process includes identifying your own values, strengthening them and knowing that they are good. 

Um, TomL, you contradict yourself here. You say first that you can't choose your feelings, and second, that they are the result of your chosen method of programming your subconscious. Pick one.

Emotions are an effect of previous choices, so you do choose them. You may not be able to turn them on and off like a switch, but they ARE entirely chosen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, TomL, you contradict yourself here.  You say first that you can't choose your feelings, and second, that they are the result of your chosen method of programming your subconscious.  Pick one.

Emotions are an effect of previous choices, so you do choose them.  You may not be able to turn them on and off like a switch, but they ARE entirely chosen.

That is entirely what I intended, spelled out better than I did originally. Thanks :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you very much for the responses. I understood romantic love, but now I see that all emotions are objective. (I was a bit slow on the uptake. :) ) The first question was the most confusing for me, but I understand now, (I think).

I have one more question. Why did Rearden allow his family to mooch off of his money? I think the answer is the unearned guilt he felt for them, but I'm not sure.

Thanks again,

Zak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have one more question. Why did Rearden allow his family to mooch off of his money? I think the answer is the unearned guilt he felt for them, but I'm not sure.

Rearden allowed a breach between his ideas and his personal life. He couldn't comprehend that his family might, in full intention, be trying to hurt him, their sole source of survival. He considered them weak, and helpless, and thus decided that, since he was intelligent and strong, if he couldn't understand it must be his own fault and he must allow them to continue as they were.

It was, after all, so easy for him, and so much for them . . .

When, later on, he realizes that they are TRULY and with FULL INTENT acting to destroy him, not because he is wrong or confused, but BECAUSE HE IS GOOD, he abandons them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

This thread has been incredibly entertaining, and informative to read. I have only a few things to add/discuss.

I keep seeing the word "want" in reference to dependance. How does wanting something make anyone dependant on it? I "want" a 2005 mustang sitting in my driveway, but I can live and be happy without it (I think, anyways). Now, if I "NEEDED" it, THEN I would be dependant. Just as most of us WANT love, do we truly NEED it?

Also. What are thoughts on LUST? Is it based on NEEDS or WANTS? If our definition (as defined before) of sex is a celebration of shared virtues or goals, is it part of Love? Romantic Love? Is LUST rational? Did Dagny and Hank LUST after one another while Dagny loved John?

Thanks for any offerings, as I'm truly enjoying your breakdown of this stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can conceive of Dagny lusting after Hank, in Galt's Gulch, perhaps on the day when he delivers the rail for her railroad to Francisco's mine. But like any human being, she will have to work on that lust. Over time, if she thinks about it enough and properly, it will be impossible for her to feel "lust" for any man but John. She will still experience admiration for other men but only lust for.

It is possible for a human mind to command that: I no longer want to feel this emotion for this object, stop! ... But the realization of that command takes time and skill.

And besides, even the best people experience out of context emotions. The thing is not to act on it.

And also to express her lust for Hank to John might just be an appropriate sex game between John and Dagny. I don't know this for sure, though.

That is all,

Americo.

Edited by AMERICONORMAN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread has been incredibly entertaining, and informative to read.  I have only a few things to add/discuss.

I keep seeing the word "want" in reference to dependance.  How does wanting something make anyone dependant on it?  I "want" a 2005 mustang sitting in my driveway, but I can live and be happy without it (I think, anyways).  Now, if I "NEEDED" it, THEN I would be dependant.  Just as most of us WANT love, do we truly NEED it?

Also.  What are thoughts on LUST?  Is it based on NEEDS or WANTS?  If our definition (as defined before) of sex is a celebration of shared virtues or goals, is it part of Love?  Romantic Love?  Is LUST rational?  Did Dagny and Hank LUST after one another while Dagny loved John? 

Thanks for any offerings, as I'm truly enjoying your breakdown of this stuff.

Independance (the Objectivist virtue) means specifically taking responsibility for thinking your own thoughts, living your own life, as opposed to letting someone else tell you what to do or provide for you. It is strictly defined by not needing other people.

Thus, if you are dependant on someone, you need them to survive. Loving someone is not dependance, even if you don't want to survive without them, because you still CAN survive without them. You can't be "dependant" in this sense on material objects, and thinking you are is a failure to distinguish between the metaphysical and man-made.

Lust is, if I understand correctly, an instance of mind/body separation; it is desire without love, i.e. desire based purely on irrational whim. People sometimes call this "physical" attraction as though they were a piece of iron and a Hot Babe (or guy) is a magnet. However, what's actually going on is that their subconscious is triggering off an internal contradiction in their value structure.

Dagny loved Francisco and Hank and John; her appraisal of them was based on an integration of mind and body and was not some random unexamined "physical" urge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may not be dependent on your student but you are dependent on teaching to make you happy. But the profession of teaching is a unique profession because its essence is to intellectualize ANOTHER. If you are in love you are dependent. Not in that the beloved is the only one to bring value to the relationship but that the height of your current state of happiness is dependent on the existential romantic union.

I remember that Roark did admit to Dominique midway in the novel that he NEEDED her. There is something very erotic about someone needing another, especially a self-sufficient ego; perhaps this is the exception making involved in romance.

Americo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, another question then (While I still wait for further responces on my first two). I noticed that Rand's works tend to have a love story accompanied with them. In your OPINIONS would the hero have made the choices they made had they not had the love (and the love returned) by their lover. i.e. would Anthem's Hero have gone into the forest had he never seen/met/loved the girl he met in the fields? Would John have fought so hard had Dagny never existed? Or Dagny had John or Hank not been there?

Thanks for appeasing my curiousity. :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll answer it this way:

John would have reached the destruction of the world sooner had Dagny never existed. However, the most important thing about Galt's relationship with Dagny is that she was his biggest obstacle to destroying the world. It is hard to imagine Dagny not existing.

Perhaps, since Frisco probably told Galt about the greatness of Dagny in college, Dagny as his "trophy" might have been an important factor in deciding to go on strike and take the rest of the minds with him. "I'm taking my friends to my hometown. She is one of them. She I love. Yet she is my biggest obstacle." I think career is a higher value in Atlas than romantic love is. I think the point is that they are interdependent.

It's a good question you ask.

Americo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anthem's Hero have gone into the forest had he never seen/met/loved the girl he met in the fields?  Would John have fought so hard had Dagny never existed?  Or Dagny had John or Hank not been there? 

The heroes do what they do to the degree they are aware of the facts available, including why they feel the way they do. They act based on the context of their knowledge, and that context involves the knowledge of the existence of their romantic interests. To act "in spite" of your knowledge means to commit evasion, which is at the root of immorality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer the question of would John Galt have fought as hard if Dagny wasn't around... definitely. As a previous poster said, Galt would have destroyed the world faster than before, as Dagny was his biggest obstacle. She was the one who fought against him more than any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In your OPINIONS would the hero have made the choices they made had they not had the love (and the love returned) by their lover.  i.e. would Anthem's Hero have gone into the forest had he never seen/met/loved the girl he met in the fields? 

Anthem's Hero DID go into the forest without a thought to his beloved, as he should. The fact that she chose to follow him was a demonstration of her personal character and the fact that he was right in choosing to love her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anthem's Hero DID go into the forest without a thought to his beloved, as he should.  The fact that she chose to follow him was a demonstration of her personal character and the fact that he was right in choosing to love her.

That's not true at all. He went in with almost ALL thoughts to his beloved. I also believe that he was torn between leaving and staying because of it. The question, however, was had he never SEEN her or MET her. He might have been more inclined to not do anything (Granted it's been several years since reading it, I still remember much). So, opinion wise, was the love the moving force behind the actions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not true at all.  He went in with almost ALL thoughts to his beloved.  I also believe that he was torn between leaving and staying because of it.  The question, however, was had he never SEEN her or MET her.  He might have been more inclined to not do anything (Granted it's been several years since reading it, I still remember much).  So, opinion wise, was the love the moving force behind the actions?

What? Anthem's hero fled to the forest in fear of his life after he realized that his fellow men were so evil that they rejected his invention and his benevolence because it was good and they had NOT done it. IIRC he felt, at most, a mild regret that he could not expect to see his beloved again. He thought, also, that he was going to die in the forest, but then he realized that it didn't have to be that way if he took it upon himself to support his own life.

So, no, his love for The Golden One was not a motivating force in the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes you think Galt destroyed the world? He went on strike and convinced men of ability to join him.

Come one! Yes, Galt destroyed the world. Even without referring to Dagny's labelling of Galt as the destroyer, by persuading, one by one, the Atlas' in industry to go on strike, he in effect was bringing down the collapse of the economy and thus destroy the "civilized" world. That is how I use Galt as a destroyer. He "destroyed" one world and saved and created another; the world of Plato and that of Aristotle (and Galt).

The idea is clear in the novel: go on strike and the welfare state will self-destruct. This is why he doesn't like Ragnar's actual destructive methods ... because you don't need to pirate from the welfare governments to destroy the world. But that "piracy" is Ragnar's personal mission as his avenging and paying tribute to industrialists like Rearden.

I hope this helps.

Americo.

P.S. What do you think is meant by "I will stop the motor of the world"?Take a motor of a car and what do you do? You may not annihilate it but it ceases to function according to its identity, and thus will act the same as if it were to be extinguished.

Link to comment
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...