Marrying Non-Objectivists

[Inspector]

Then why assume I was referring to you

Because that's what you were doing. The "loser" part was his characterization of MY post.

Anyone who'd imply such about a girl they didn't know would be a loser themselves.

In fact, nobody implied this. But you were thinking that I had?

[JMeganSnow]

Here is my public reply to this; I've PM'd Inspector and hopefully we can continue politely now that I've vented my temper.

1) I think that an "Objectivist having a relationship with someone that isn't an Objectivist is insane," when the context is the later stages of a romantic relationship.

(I mean I hope it works out for you, Moose, I really do. But I'm not confident there's anything but pain in your future. Not unless she has a big change in her beliefs.)

These two statements contradict each other. Either it has a possibility of working, or it doesn't. If it does, by what standard do you declare that it is insane? Is it insane to act in accordance with one's own judgement?

I think (perhaps) that you think it would be unwise. Extremely difficult. Unlikely to work. Not something you personally would do. Not insane. In which case what I said about miedra does not apply to you.

[JMeganSnow]

If you want my opinion, I don't think a non-Objectivist is ready for any kind of relationship at all. The more difficult the task, the more philosophic skill is required. Romance isn't child's play. You have to be very much in recognition of reality or you'll screw it up.

Objectivism does not equal "philosophy", please remember. Objectivism is an example of A philosophy.

It is your stand that only Objectivists are competent to function in any capacity? Only Objectivists are capable of recognizing reality?! Only Objectivists possess philosophic skill? MY what a thing to say.

[JMeganSnow]

Why? Because YOU need to get a handle on YOUR superior worth. You need MORE self-esteem. You're falling to pieces over losing this girl... but who would be the bigger loser if you broke up? "She would, she should be so lucky to get a guy like me" should be your answer.

Emphasis mine.

Wow, you totally, completely, didn't read what I wrote, did you? You're going to be embarassed about this when you do... I never used the word "loser," and that's not how Moose meant the word when he used it to describe what I had said.

Ahem.

[Inspector]

Emphasis mine.

Ahem.

Okay, I need to slow down. What I meant was that I didn't use the word "loser" as a pejorative, but rather to mean "who would lose out." In my haste, I've written it rather wrong and I fear made a fool of myself.

Dang, now we're both embarassed. See what you've done?

[Inspector]

These two statements contradict each other.  Either it has a possibility of working, or it doesn't.  If it does, by what standard do you declare that it is insane?  Is it insane to act in accordance with one's own judgement?

I think (perhaps) that you think it would be unwise.  Extremely difficult.  Unlikely to work.  Not something you personally would do.  Not insane.  In which case what I said about miedra does not apply to you.

Yes, it is a little unclear the way I wrote it. By "the later stages," I meant the point in life where one was committed, married, etc. The crazy part, in my reckoning, is not in dating or going out with someone who still holds onto a major irrationality. The crazy part is in accepting a deep romatic relationship even on the condition that the other person will never let go of that irrationality. The reason why that is a problem is something that Dr. Peikoff thouroughly handled.

[Inspector]

Objectivism does not equal "philosophy", please remember.  Objectivism is an example of A philosophy.

It is your stand that only Objectivists are competent to function in any capacity?  Only Objectivists are capable of recognizing reality?!  Only Objectivists possess philosophic skill?  MY what a thing to say.

Okay, again, the context was romantic relationships. So I really should have said "any romantic relationship."

[Unconquered]

If you want my opinion, I don't think a non-Objectivist is ready for any kind of relationship at all.

Wow! If that isn't the pinnacle of rationalistic claims, what the heck is?

That merely means that 99.9+% of the human race isn't ready for any kind of relationship at all, apparently, and 100% of them prior to 1957.

[Dagny]

As always (IMHO) JMeganSnow is right on. I came to find out about Objectivism after I'd been married for 3 years. I insisted my husband read the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. While he agrees with some of the Objectivist ideals (reason, life, etc) he is still hesitant about some others. We actually have had quite a few debates where I try to convince him to agree with the other ideals but I cannot force him into it. Perhaps as I continue to learn more I'll be able to explain it better. Personally, I think he will eventually come around but even if he doesn't he is still the most rational human being I know in person and the sweetest.

To Moose: I have also talked to my parents (who grew up Catholic) about Objectivism and my becoming Atheist. While they say they agree with EVERYTHING the philosophy offers and are happy for me, they said that they will continue believing in God and saying prayers because that's the way they grew up all their lives and (in my mom's words) "were too old too change". I love them just the same and thank them for instilling in me the principles of hard work and learning.

P.S. To JMeganSnow good luck with your online guy...I met my husband online as well and can totally relate to your "not wanting to meet people".

[Felix]

It is true that Objectivism is a major philosophical achievement. But assuming that anyone who hasn't fully and completely accepted the entire philosophy of Ayn Rand (which is Rand's definition of an Objectivist) is incapable of romantic relationships is a wild claim. I wonder how many people on this forum completely accept everything.

Which brings me to another part of it:

How in the world did humans survive until 1957?

My answer is simple.

Everybody in the end values lots of Objectivism's philosophical points. Simply because it is based on reality and reason. And since everyone lives in reality he has to have at least a little bit of reason to survive.

It may be that Objectivists can value more of what they do right, and therefore enjoy good relationships more (especially in a philosophical sense).

[IdeaSave]

My 2 cents: Doesn't this all boil down to the idea that the philosophy one lives by is more important than the philosophy one talks about? The latter isn't unimportant, and it would be best if the two were the same, but still, the former is more important than the latter. Note: I'm taking for granted that the former is _good_.

Very few people on this planet are integrated to the point where those two are the same. To insist that no romantic relationship is possible/advisable with such a non-integrated person is basically to condemn oneself to a very long time, perhaps a lifetime, without a romantic relationship.

That cannot be good.

Given that a potential partner's values as revealed by his/her actions meet one's standard for romantic involvement, one has to decide how relevant his/her consciously held but wrong views are, and then act accordingly.

If you've spent time working on yourself, on getting good ideas into your subconscious and conscious minds and on living your life by them, then your emotional and intellectual response to such a person, given enough time, can be trusted.

Depriving oneself of the resulting joy would be self-sacrificial.

Mark Peters

[Inspector]

Wow! If that isn't the pinnacle of rationalistic claims, what the heck is? 

That merely means that 99.9+% of the human race isn't ready for any kind of relationship at all, apparently, and 100% of them prior to 1957.

I know that 99.9% of the people I meet, see, and talk to are in messed up, broken, dysfunctional, or sham relationships. I know the divorce rates are astronomical. I know that disgustingly high statistical percentages of women are victims of domestic abuse.

The relationships that do stay together only do so because one or both parties has completely given in to the other's vices and has abandoned all hope of the happiness they once desired. For example, I just heard a co-worker whose wife lets him go to strip clubs. I don't consider his marriage functional. He and his wife may both claim to be happy with it, but I don't think it's a good idea for ANYONE to do that.

I could go on. I used to work next to my former company's warehouse. The things that the married men there would say about women were absolutely disgusting. They obviously either didn't love their wives, or were so non-integrated that they didn't see how they were betraying them.

I hear story after story from men and women about how every single relationship they have ever had has been terrible, disasterous, and, in the cases of the women (and the occasional man), often physically abusive.

I'm not sure why so many people bear their souls to me, but a surprising number have. I'm a "listener," I guess.

I don't consider a broken, dysfunctional, messed up, or sham relationship to be something that I personally consider worth it for a person to engage in. The people I meet seem to think that "settling" is a worthwhile proposition.

Even students of Objectivism that I have seen online have advocated "settling" in one fashion or another. I just plain don't agree.

The kind of relationship that I consider worth pursuing can't be done if someone isn't extremely rational and integrated. Not only won't they even be able to concieve of such a relationship, but they would miserably fail at one if they tried.

Now, can a person be THAT rational and integrated without being an Objectivist? Yes, of course. I just didn't consider that possibility worth mentioning. I see now that it was. So, sorry about that folks.

[Michero]

It is perfectly possible to have a relationship with someone who isn't an Objectivist-- only if that person is has the basic premises already integrated though perhaps not consciously-- and this is a very rare person. I agree that it is not possible to have a rational romantic relationship with a religious person (if you are an Objectivist). Religion goes against every fundamental of the philosophy and a person who believes in God does not believe in life--presumably you do. They are irrational whilst you are rational, they judge love arbitrarily where you actually judge the person you want to love and give your love deservingly to that person. I think the big problem here is that you are giving your love to a person who doesn't respect it. Call me a jerk, fine, but you should not compromise your values by giving your love as charity.

[softwareNerd]

Would a relationship with a libertarian just as impossible as a relationship with a religious person? Why or why not?

[Schefflera Arboricola]

First, let me say that I haven't even read the whole thread. If you read my post and think that the view I am arguing against is one that I found in your post, please do not reply and tell me that it's not what you said. I am making generalizations. If the shoe doesn't fit, please don't wear it. It hurts your feet and it's not good for the shoe, either.

I get the impression that some people (here and elsewhere) think that being an Objectivist gives you an automatic +5 "Romantically Desirable" modifier. Not necessarily one that other people can see, of course, but <i>objectively</i> speaking, you're just...worth more. You're exchanging values for values, but the non-Objectivist is getting a bargain. So there is consideration of whether the non-Objectivist can or will eventually come up to the Objectivist's standards; how involved the Objectivist should become; whether it's better to wait and hope, or to have a relationship and hope that the non-Objectivist will become "more rational." Et cetera.

I would like to read and participate in a discussion that involved more concrete, detailed discussion of the qualities--other than a person's stated explicit philosophy--that make a romantic relationship possible and enjoyable.

--Schefflera

[Schefflera Arboricola]

Would a relationship with a libertarian just as impossible as a relationship with a religious person? Why or why not?

No, because it would be more impossible to have a relationship with the Libertarian. I could love someone who was terribly mistaken, but not someone who was annoyingly mistaken.

--Schefflera

[softwareNerd]

... You're exchanging values for values, but the non-Objectivist is getting a bargain. ...

Only if you assume that the person's philosophy is the sole measure of the values being traded. I don't believe that is so.

[hunterrose]

I could love someone who was terribly mistaken, but not someone who was annoyingly mistaken.

That seems quite subjective, though. What make theism only "annoyingly" mistaken, and political affiliation "terribly" mistaken? Wouldn't this distinction be up to the individual?

[jrs]

What may be more important than your fiance's philosophical or religious beliefs is: Is she an intellectual? That is, does she think that ideas are important?

If not, can you live the rest of your life with a non-intellectual? Someone who is concrete-bound, like an animal?

[Schefflera Arboricola]

That seems quite subjective, though. What make theism only "annoyingly" mistaken, and political affiliation "terribly" mistaken? Wouldn't this distinction be up to the individual?

You've got my sentence backwards; I was calling the religious person "terribly mistaken," and the Libertarian "annoyingly mistaken." But I was attempting to be funny in doing so. Perhaps it would have come across more clearly if I put a smiley face at the end of the sentence. I feel silly doing that.

--Schefflera

[Saraswathi]

I know that 99.9% of the people I meet, see, and talk to are in messed up, broken, dysfunctional, or sham relationships. I know the divorce rates are astronomical. I know that disgustingly high statistical percentages of women are victims of domestic abuse.

I don't consider a broken, dysfunctional, messed up, or sham relationship to be something that I personally consider worth it for a person to engage in. The people I meet seem to think that "settling" is a worthwhile proposition.

Even students of Objectivism that I have seen online have advocated "settling" in one fashion or another. I just plain don't agree.

The kind of relationship that I consider worth pursuing can't be done if someone isn't extremely rational and integrated. Not only won't they even be able to concieve of such a relationship, but they would miserably fail at one if they tried.

Now, can a person be THAT rational and integrated without being an Objectivist? Yes, of course. I just didn't consider that possibility worth mentioning. I see now that it was. So, sorry about that folks.

I completely agree with you.I understand that Ayn Rand's philosophy has the value of being the most practical and nobel philosophy.As such even the best intentions cannot be executed without being "scientific".So even if it might be theoretically moral to tolerate and be in a relationship with a non-objectivist(and I mean an objectivist by his sub-conscious workings,not someone who calls himself and objectivist and behaves irrationally)ideal would be someone consciously and completely rational,in real situations when decisions have to be mutual,then the conflict of values can hurt the relationship badly.For example the decision of say abortion.Can one explain to an irrational spouse the realities of a budget if he/she overspends and there are children to support.Usually most other philosphies help in rationalizing irrationalities.To my understanding of Ayn Rand's philosophy "The moral is the practical" .If someone is not honest,or responsible or rationalizes mistakes whether or not the partner has heard of Ayn Rand or not,is it truly possible to have any dealings for long with someone who does not share one's own value systems.Here I certainly don't mean tastes in food etc.,I mean the values on whose basis a person makes judgements and decisions.Suppose that someone would dilly-dally or encourage but not make commitment or stand-up on a date or be dishonest and not feel it necessary to explain it on the basis of irrational ideas he holds like.

[studentofobjectivism]

I don't think that for one to be in a romantic relationship the other person has to be a fully integrated Objectivist. Even if you somehow find an Objectivist in your area, you've got to understand that there are a lot of psuedo-Objectivists out there who are under the delusion that they are truly Objectivists.

I think it all comes down to the persons' sense of life. Do they love life? Do they enjoy the short amount of time they have on this earth?

[JMeganSnow]

I would like to read and participate in a discussion that involved more concrete, detailed discussion of the qualities--other than a person's stated explicit philosophy--that make a romantic relationship possible and enjoyable.

This is the most useful thing to do.

Most of the bad relationships I know of (and I know of several) tend to be the result of ridiculous expectations on the part of one or the other involved party, not philosophical conflicts. In a marriage, especially, things like who is going to do the cooking, pay the bills, and take out the trash can be a bigger deal than explicit philosophical differences.

A romantic relationship is not a Vulcan Mind Meld. My grandparents (who are Catholic, btw) have been married 50+ years and still have considerable affection for each other, and they are two very different, opinionated, individualistic people. What they do have, though, is a good working relationship with a functional division-of-labor.

My parents (liberal atheists) have some relationship problems that stem from the fact that they have different priorities: my dad likes to be more spontaneous and not worry about details, whereas my mom likes to have everything sorted out well in advance. Again: not a philosophical conflict.

If the attraction is there, maintaining a romantic relationship comes down, ultimately, to practical issues. It's almost like providing good customer service. Have you told your partner what you expect of them? Are they willing to provide it? Are you consistent in your demands? Do you work hard to meet your partner's demands?

The bad relationships I've seen crumble, usually, not because of philosophical differences but because practical demands weren't explained up front or they were, as I said above, ridiculous.

It is absurd to expect your partner to compromise on a matter of principle: just like it would be absurd to expect ANYONE to compromise on principle. Some people may not be aware of this fact, in which case you need to make it abundantly clear BEFORE you commit. Likewise it's absurd to treat your partner as an extension of you that will go with you everywhere and do whatever you like whenever you like it.

Preventing a relationship from turning into a hash is a matter of knowing WHAT you expect and BEING HONEST about it, and, as the converse, knowing what your partner honestly expects and then DOING IT. If you're not willing to DO what your partner expects (or you only do it grudgingly), the relationship will fail no matter what the depth of your feelings are. It doesn't matter whether one person or both people have a particular explicit philosophy or if they don't really have any interest in theoretical philosophy whatsoever!

[The Wrath]

Saying that only Objectivists are ready for relationships is nothing less than ridiculous. First of all, I do not consider Objectivism to be a cult, but statements like that are what gives Objectivism its "cultish" appearance to people who are not familiar with it. I view that in about the same way I would view the following statement:

"Well, I'm a member of the Southern Baptist Church of the Lord, Reformation of 1919, and she's a member of the Southern Baptist Church of the Lord, Reformation of 1943, so there are obviously some irreconciliable differences between us and we can never be together."

There are some very rational people out there who are just mistaken in their premises. My father, for example, is one of the most rational men that I have ever known. However, he is a Christian. Unlike most Christians, he recognizes the need to have evidence to support his beliefs. Now, he sees some pretty bizaare things as "evidence," but he at least recognizes the need to have it. For whatever reason, he can't get over that hurdle, but that doesn't mean he isn't rational. Although both my parents have read Atlas Shrugged, they are nowhere near being Objectivists, and they have been happily married for 30 years. They've never had any major fights, that I am aware of, they have always been faithful to each other, and they make each other truly happy. By Inspector's warped standards, this is impossible.

So I am forced to accept one of 2 conclusions:

1.) My parents are completely miserable, they hate each other, and they put up a really good show, kind of like the couple in American Beauty.

2.) Non-Objectivists can have fulfilling relationships.

Having known my parents for 23 and a half years, I am forced to go with option number 2.

[Unconquered]

Saying that only Objectivists are ready for relationships is nothing less than ridiculous.  First of all, I do not consider Objectivism to be a cult, but statements like that are what gives Objectivism its "cultish" appearance to people who are not familiar with it.

And it should be kept in mind that Inspector is not speaking for Objectivism. The absurdity of his statement is reinforced by the obvious fact that there were exactly zero Objectivists in the world prior to the philosophy's full enumeration, including Ayn Rand herself and virtually every human being who's ever lived. If only Objectivists had relationships (as though being an Objectivist were some kind of guarantee that a relationship will always last! Ever hear of free will??), the human race would rather rapidly go out of existence.