Alright, I’ve heard from many in here that being in explicit agreement with Objectivism shouldn’t be needed. But do you really think their explicit ideas shouldn’t matter *at all*? I doubt that is entirely irrelevant, so then how much should it matter? And whether you think explicitly accepting Objectivism should be needless or not, to what extent is it alright to try to work to convince somebody of your explicit ideas? If somebody else seeks out asking you about something I know that then is fine, but what about otherwise?
Here is what the Ayn Rand Lexicon has to say about love. I am not sure if you’ve read any of this, but I think it will answer a lot of the questions you have.
You have to share values with a person to have some sort of relationship with them. I share some values with my friends, I share a lot of very important values with my husband.
I think as long as you find someone who is rational and shares the values that are most important to you, and you’re in love with their sense of life, you’re doing good. If you limit yourself to just Objectivists, you may have a very lonely life. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not telling you to settle, but if you’re truly in love with someone, don’t let the fact that they won’t declare them self an “Objectivist” stand in the way.
Does that make sense?
I’ve read the lexicon entry on love before. Right now I’m wondering about how legitimate or illegitimate efforts to what extent to try to persuade such a person of my general philosophic positions could be. Another part of conversation with that person I spoke of before included that there was something wrong also in my efforts to convince this person of Objectivism, specifically it seemed in that I was trying to convince somebody rather than somebody taking it upon themself on their own maybe? Ah, I’m a bit tired right now so I’m not sure how well I’m explaining this. If I can come up with something better for how to put after waking tomorrow, I’ll edit this.
There’s nothing wrong with trying to convince someone, period. The problem is that it’s not a good idea to base a romantic relationship around the idea that one or both of the partners will *change*.
If you’re going to love someone, you have to love them for who they are. If they have exactly the kind of sense of life you want but their explicitly-held principles don’t quite match up, that can still work out, albeit it is more difficult.
You have to decide what is important to you and how the various factors relate in comparison to each other. For me, I’d rather have sense-of-life agreement than explicit agreement. A lot of explicit Objectivists have a sense-of-life that I don’t like at all. But that may not be the case for you. So you have to make up your own mind.
Hi bluecherry, Just to butt in here, as your story rang a few bells for me.
Now i’m sure I’ll come across like your stern uncle, but that’s because i’m old enough to be him, I reckon! You have heard some good advice here, and I’d like to attempt to add to it.
First off, there are some excellent people out there who are not O’ists , and probably will never be. You’ve heard this already. But let me continue: 1.Objectivism is for you,and you alone. (And as you go on in life you will find that it will add value and understanding that is denied most people.)
This leads to 2. You cannot, should not, force-feed anyone your philosophy. ( In fact, it’s not only counter-productive, and might lead to resentment, it is essential that this person discovers it for himself, at his own time and pace - or not at all).
And who are we to anticipate, or rush this process.
This may help you -it did me- to envisage your philosophy. View Objectivism as a structure, an incredibly well-engineered matrix, or lattice, (in stainless-steel? vanadium?) that holds within it all the answers and methodology you’ll ever need. You will exist in this matrix, but the spaces in it are for you alone to explore, for you to fill. That’s your individual mind and Self, and must never be given up.
I have spent a lot of time thinking about intimacy and love, and admit that I got it wrong much of the time.
I do know that I have known a few great human beings who were not overtly Objectivist, who had good independent minds, and their own value-system, who [once I got over the fact that they were not going to be O’ist] I did learn to appreciate and respect for precisely WHO THEY WERE.
With others, I could have saved myself a lot of grief and bad mistakes with ‘unsuitable’ women, if I had not forgotten a. My own rationality, and b. The wise words of Dieter.
Dieter was this German restaurant owner - then, a 60-something romantic of note! - who told me many years ago his theory on love. He told me that for love to ever eventuate it had to go through these steps: Attraction Infatuation Admiration Acceptance Respect and Trust. This then is love, by his definition. Hard to fault, but that’s not all.
He insisted that this process must of course be mutual - although I’m sure the timing doesn’t have to be exact.
He said that if either partner jumps or misses a step, it will go badly wrong, later.
That if one or both get stuck in one step [usually infatuation - don’t we know this!], the relationship should end.
Lastly, and importantly, NONE of the steps, even infatuation, or attraction, should be discarded, or lost, at a later stage. The ultimate is to hold onto them all, at once.
This sounds like work I guess, but it should be pleasure. For me, I know it holds true. Why didn’t I listen to Dieter!?
Tony
I haven’t responded to this thread in a bit now as I’ve been trying to take some more time to think on this and sort out exactly what my thoughts, feelings, and concerns are here now. It has been taking me a while to do this and I think I’ve figured out two reasons why it is difficult for me to say for sure on this issue.
The first reason is something I’m pretty sure isn’t entirely rational of me, I know it’s not good, but I’m not yet sure exactly how to straighten this issue out and correct it. I think by now after what has gone on lately I feel very guilty over having so badly hurt somebody I care about so much. Now, I know it is pretty normal to end up hurting people you care about now and then even if you really didn’t mean to, but this isn’t something I’m used to accepting because for most of my life I’ve been able to maintain a number of friendships, some of them very close even, and I haven’t hurt these people - haven’t even really fought with them - since I was probably in early elementary school, so I’d gotten used to the idea that if I was just careful and well intentioned and tried to understand the people I care about, then I don’t have to end up hurting them. I have tried to act with our best interests in mind and to understand this person I value so much and I’ve been trying to do the best things I could think of based on what situations I was in and what information and time I had to work with, yet nonetheless I’ve found myself unwittingly causing great pains to somebody who more than ever I have just wanted to make their life better for my being in it, to be a boon and not a burden, to counteract the pains and help bring his life further into the good, not to contribute further to sending things into the bad. And furthermore some of the things lately which have upset him are things I didn’t expect would upset him, or at least not so badly so, and often they have come from when I thought I was doing things to make things better. So now that this still can be happening after so much time trying to understand, it concerns me more than ever if I won’t just keep unwittingly making things worse. The general result of this being it hard for me now to figure out exactly how I feel about him because now I have a sense of having no more right to him or even to the positive feelings I’ve gotten from him before, so they’re sort of like they’ve been locked away and put out of my access anymore almost and so I can’t get to them to try to assess their exact nature now. 
Now, I know it should be up to him who he wants to have around him of course so I’m not about to just run off right away, but it is a real problem on multiple levels that I can’t well access and determine my feelings for him because one thing he has definitely told me now is that he doesn’t want to end up going through anything similar to all this again so he only wants me staying with him now if I can definitively say by my own standards that I love him now.
Now to the second complicating issue. I’ve been asked before why I cared about the explicit philosophic positions of somebody so much in romance and I’ve given some explanation about not wanting to see them hurting themself and this is certainly true. Thinking on it more though I think an even bigger concern for me is that because this is something which is so big in my life I think if I could never have a strong connection with at least somebody else who shares this with me that I’d always feel a little lonely. And I don’t really think just a regular friendship with somebody I shared this with would quite cut it to solve this for me. Now, first off with this there is that I don’t know that this loneliness would necessarily be something I couldn’t just deal with, but second off, there’s another reason even then which even if I really needed this wouldn’t necessarily mean he and I could not well be together, but that’s another issue I don’t want to get off topic discussing, so just know that there is a reason even then it doesn’t necessarily mean doom for us. This just is a bit of something making this harder to figure out because I think as long as that aspect goes unfulfilled for me that I see that and it makes it harder for me to appreciate the other person for who and what they are as is. At this moment, I don’t know that I necessarily can say I have so much of an issue with this person I care for as they are not sharing this philosophy so much as that I just lack at all having that role filled for me and so maybe I sort of hold it against him for not providing me with that right now as the closest of people to me basically. Hmm . . .
Hi Bluecherry,
I wanted to respond to your last post because it seems that you’ve been doing a lot of introspection on the issue and the two items you’ve come up with are very essential and core items to deal with. In fact, I think your second item is an extremely important item for you to make a decision around, and it seems you’re having trouble sorting it out.
First, as to guilt for hurting someone. This guilt may be valid or invalid. That is, it’s possible that the situation is such that you should not feel guilt for what you have done, and also the reverse. THe desire you have, to “try to make things better” is generally a good one. But it can lead to actions that coudl be considered meddling. It really depends on the situation. The thing we can’t control in a situation is someone else’s response to our actions. You may have taken actions that are reasonable and the person may be responding irrationally. If so, then you have to sort out the situation to realize that you should not be feeling guilty. However, the actions you were taking, even though motivated by good intentions might have reasonably hurt the other person and they are responding rationally. In this case, you’ve let your desire to be a good influence get away with you and you need to understand what you’re doing is not right. In order to decide which situation you have, one would have to know more about the details of the situation.
As to your second item, this is far more critical. You are having feelings of loneliness because your partner doesn’t share and recognize key values that you hold. This raises a very important principle in relationships, that of “psychological visibility”. That lonliness will prevent the relationship from being a full value to you, and it is a valid feeling. In a relationship that lasts, two things must occur, a. each party must value the other, and b. each party must feel valued or “visible” as a result. This must happen for both parties, and a, and b are not necessarily mutual. I wrote a little bit about this awhile ago, and you can find it under point 3 in this post. If feelings of invisibility persist and they very well might, the relationship will not work. You will continue to feel lonely, and you will eventually develop negative feelings about it, as you’ve described. If it continues this is one of those things where you must develop a sense of self-esteem and recognize your need for visibility. It’s perfectly possible that you value him and he feels valued (visible) and he values you, yet you don’t feel valued. In which case you are not gettign what you need from the relationship and you need to say so, and possibly end it. It is not his fault then. It simply is. But this aspect, visibility is a crucial aspect to resolve. It is how our values translate into long lasting durable feelings of love.
I’ve been busy and on a trip for the past week or so, so I haven’t been able to give as much thought to this as I’d like yet, but I just got a message from this person now saying with some things going on in his life he really needs me to try to get this figured out soon, so I’m trying to hurry up some.
As to the guilt, I don’t know if I’m over that entirely, but he’s told me by now and with other things that have gone on that I’m forgiven for the things that have happened which have hurt him. He’s pretty sure by now that a lot of what has happened which has been hurtful has been the result of me acting in circumstances which are like things that have happened to him before and he knows he’s ended up doing some unwise things in such cases too, so he can sort of understand that way and not see it as too terrible of me.
To the other point, he has told me that if it would help me and allow me to be comfortable in the relationship that he is willing to get to know and understand the philosophy as much as he can and thus make it something I could at least discuss with him well and have him understand me better and its influence in my life even if he doesn’t come to accept it himself. I’m . . . presently unsure if this on its own would be sufficient or not . . . I’ve got to give him credit for sure at least to say I know he really cares about me that he’d be that dedicated to doing this much to try to make things work for us and that does mean a lot to me, though I’m still not sure yet if not both sharing that value would still make it not enough . . .
What are you doing? Skip, I’m an adult and not just barely either. Nobody coerced me. They know better than to try to play psychologist to somebody they are close to and have no tried to do anything more for me than somebody who is close to you and cares about you normally could, no mind games or anything like that. There is nothing criminal here and I am a competent person to make decisions for myself, not an abused child.
All I have to add to this thread before I wash my hands of this is a minor statement and all of its major implications. What bluecherry refers to when she says he ‘cares about me,’ is his willingness to not only force bluecherry herself (who looks and acts like she’s 16) into a sexual relationship with not only himself but another woman who he was involved with beforehand. But also, to act as her psychologist while he screws the kid. This is not an insult, this is factual matter that can (and should) be verified by the police. I regret my (nonsexual, and mostly virtual) involvement with the kid, and hope that someone else reading this thread can do what I have only come to feel bitter and sick about with no possibility of action. Action like, prosecution of the criminal she will continue to fall back to.
What are you talking about?
BlueCherry,
In your original post, you mentioned that the guy you’re seeing has psychological issues. Fair enough, if they’re within reason. However, the thing that jumped out like a red flag was your judgement that switching to a “just friends” relationship could somehow be physically dangerous to you. In my judgement, if you have a real reason to be fearful in that way, however slight, you should end this right now. As Jennifer said in her reply, his problems are his. In other words, he is not your patient. The world is so full of good guys; why choose someone from the bottom of the barrel.
softwareNerd, such is a moot point by now I think given I’ve now been told I am not to try to be with him again unless I could be fine with even if he never agreed with Objectivism and so that takes away any reason for a waiting period anyway, that waiting period as friends being where there could have been some issue.
Skip, nobody is forcing my hand here. I’m writing for myself on my own convictions. (Or in some cases, my own lack of convictions.)
There seems to be only one real issue that I can identify: you’re dating someone with conditions. The excuse that you “haven’t gotten around to” reading the objectivist works that are important to you together is invalid. You’ve had 2.5 years. If it were that important, I’m sure you both could have made time. The fact that he hasn’t gone out of his way to read them alone (while you’re still dating) is significant as well. It sends a message that either 1) your wishes aren’t that important to him or 2) he doesn’t care to learn that much about objectivism.
If you choose to only date someone who is an objectivist, that’s fine. However, attempting to mold someone INTO an objectivist is not. It has to be undertaken freely, otherwise it’s analagous to forced religious conversion. Not only that, but you should be prepared for the fact that he may not be the TYPE of objectivist you want. As this forum clearly demonstrates, all objectivists are not equal and they disagree on a lot of major topics. Additionally, there are many people who only embrace part of objectivism or who agree with only a few of its principles. They’re not objectivists in the true sense, but there’s a good chance this person you’re dating could be in that category.
It seems to me that there’s too much work going into this whole thing. It shouldn’t be that hard if you both agree. I think there’s a level of appeasement going on here and that will lead to the other person resenting you. You’re not embracing them for who they are, you’re embracing them conditionally on who you want them to BECOME. Not to say you shouldn’t have standards, but those standards should be met through common interest, not prodding and threats from you.
As a man who has been rejected by, and is friends with, far more women than I have ever dated or probably will ever date, I can attest to most men not wanting to REALLY be friends with women who turn them down. They don’t get the concept of total rejection with no possibility of parole 
I agree with the other posters who said that there’s almost no way this could work as a friendship, even temporarily, after 2.5 years. Under those conditions, I would EXPECT him to resent you because you’re sending a thinly-veiled message that “You’re not good enough. Once you embrace what I want you to embrace, then you’re welcome back into my good graces.” I think it would be beneficial to stop trying to nudge him towards a goal he clearly hasn’t embraced.
You’ve had enough time to make a decision. Either accept him for what he is or don’t.
Yeah, but as I said up a couple posts, by now he only wants me back if I could be fine even if he never really agreed with Objectivism anymore. So that’s no longer an issue of possible resentment over me being seen as trying to force him into anything. Right now I think it is largely an issue of me trying to figure out (as quickly as I can) if I could be satisfied without him ever agreeing with Objectivism and if just the rest of the stuff I treasure about him could be sufficient to keep me happy for as long as we could both could be around each other. There is one more minor element to this equation I’m trying to sort out in my mind too which maybe could tip the balance, but that’s pretty much the issue at hand.
Yeah, but as I said up a couple posts, by now he only wants me back if I could be fine even if he never really agreed with Objectivism anymore. So that’s no longer an issue of possible resentment over me being seen as trying to force him into anything. Right now I think it is largely an issue of me trying to figure out (as quickly as I can) if I could be satisfied without him ever agreeing with Objectivism and if just the rest of the stuff I treasure about him could be sufficient to keep me happy for as long as we could both could be around each other. There is one more minor element to this equation I’m trying to sort out in my mind too which maybe could tip the balance, but that’s pretty much the issue at hand.
Sounds like you have the situation well in hand then. Just as a opinion, I don’t think anyone NEEDS to agree with whatever philosophy you embrace for the two of you to be happy. You may PREFER to date an objectivist, but the argument that you couldn’t make a relationship work unless you were both objectivists is a weak one.
I would examine why your significant other being objectivist is so important to you. Say you were dating some religious zealot. It would be pretty hard to respect that person if they thought you were a filthy sinner who deserved to burn in hell for all eternity because you didn’t embrace their faith. The same goes for being too strict with objectivism. Do you not respect this man as a person because he’s not objectivist? Whatever this guy sees in you, whatever he loves you for, it’s clearly independent of your objectivist views. Even if your objectivism is what is responsible for who you are, it’s still indirect to him. You could take the objectivism out of your life and he’d still love you, regardless of HOW you got to be the way you are.
Now, the challenge for you is to determine what you love about HIM. Whatever it is, it didn’t appear because he was an objectivist. I doubt if he ever was. So, in the abscence of objectivist thought, he still was and is a person who has many great things in him that you treasure. To hold stubbornly onto objectivist dogma at this point would be silly. You keep your beliefs, he keeps his. If you’re both open-minded, intelligent people, you can at least mutually respect each other’s right to your respective views, even if you don’t agree with them.
There’s plenty of people who are completely happy with each other and who see the world very differently. I keep coming back to religion, but there are believers who marry aethesists, muslims who marry christians, agnostics who marry objectivists, and all other combination of relationships that would never work out on paper. The point is, no matter how tightly you embrace your personal philosophy, there’s more to life than that. They’re just GUIDELINES so that you can reach whatever potential you posess in a way that makes you fulfilled. That’s why philosophy is relative. It doesn’t matter HOW you attain fulfillment, just that you attain it. You’re not selling out because you’re with someone who doesn’t think the same way you do. There’s truth to the old adage “opposites attract.” That’s how it became and old adage
There must have been instances in your relationship where the two of you were completely living in the moment, not thinking about philosophy or the future or anything but the immediate present. Philosophy didn’t matter right then. Now it’s about how the two of you make each other feel and whether you want to continue that or not.
Say you were dating some religious zealot. It would be pretty hard to respect that person if they thought you were a filthy sinner who deserved to burn in hell for all eternity because you didn’t embrace their faith. The same goes for being too strict with objectivism.
Firstly, this reminds me of Ayn Rand’s “extremism: the art of smearing” lecture. But, I guess to have a good understanding of what you mean, you would have to explain if you are attaching a moral connotation to consistency and if so, why.
IF you are indeed implying _ consistency _ as the vice, and advocating “shades of grey” as it were in this view, then the same absolutely does not go for being “too strict” with Objectivism. You are discounting the fact that Objectivism is based entirely on reason, while religion is based entirely on non-reason.
To hold stubbornly onto objectivist dogma at this point would be silly.
What dogma would this be?
There’s plenty of people who are completely happy with each other and who see the world very differently. I keep coming back to religion, but there are believers who marry aethesists, muslims who marry christians, agnostics who marry objectivists, and all other combination of relationships that would never work out on paper. The point is, no matter how tightly you embrace your personal philosophy, there’s more to life than that. They’re just GUIDELINES so that you can reach whatever potential you posess in a way that makes you fulfilled. That’s why philosophy is relative.
I disagree. You don’t say to your lover “I love you, but I don’t agree with (or don’t regard as important or significant) any/most of the values that you hold important, or I don’t regard them as important…but I still love you anyway for your own good or because you deserve it or because we share some non-essential values, or for no particular reason at all (except that it has nothing to do with the things you value in life or regard as important)”. That sounds like a very insulting and disingenuous way to tell someone you care about them. What would you expect a man or a woman to say in response to a message, whether explicit or implicit, like this?
It doesn’t matter HOW you attain fulfillment, just that you attain it.
So, are you saying that “the ends justify the means”?
You’re not selling out because you’re with someone who doesn’t think the same way you do. There’s truth to the old adage “opposites attract.” That’s how it became and old adage
I think there’s more to that statement. “Opposites attract, at first. Then they repel.” But, many times it doesn’t work like that at all…relationships are based on common values. The more important the values, the stronger the potential relationship. No values = no relationship. Why would you be friends with someone while explicitly or implicitly discounting or outright disagreeing with their highest values? Why would they want to be friends with you?
There must have been instances in your relationship where the two of you were completely living in the moment, not thinking about philosophy or the future or anything but the immediate present. Philosophy didn’t matter right then. Now it’s about how the two of you make each other feel and whether you want to continue that or not.
That’s the illusion - that it doesn’t matter. But it does matter. “Living in the moment” all the time requires context dropping. What’s the context? Your life. Not 30 seconds, 30 days or 3 months into the future, but 30, 40, 50 years or more depending on your age. If you spend too much time “living in the moment” and ignore the future, you’re shortchanging yourself and the other person. People need to think long range. The longer the range, the better 
Thanks to both of the above people for responding - shadesofgrey for putting the effort in in general and prosperity for addressing already what I found troubling in shadesofgrey’s post now that I’ve gotten to read all of it.
Anyway, to get to my next thought here. I am definitely not convinced that everybody who supports Objectivism necessarily is doing anything in any way wrong by having people who don’t support Objectivism for mates. However, for as long as I’ve known about Objectivism generally I’ve never really understood exactly how these other people have sort of reconciled I guess to themselves that they are committed to what they can expect will be a permanent romantic relationship with somebody who does not share with them this large value. Based on the nature of romance and the importance of philosophy I just haven’t gotten how that really works for people.
I’ve explained some things earlier about why I’d see Objectivism as valuable to have in a mate - having it available to help that mate in their own welfare, having them better able to understand and interact with me, having more things for us to share and bond in in activities and sentiments.
There are indeed many things of value to me in this other person, many of them optional personal values, sense of life issues, and also many of the things generally being very close to beliefs and values in Objectivism. However not everything fits with it so well and it doesn’t have the same amount of integration as a real consciously held philosophy. I’ve said how I wondered about if I could never have as part of my life that deep of a connection with somebody who shared such a large value with me as Objectivism is for me if I may still feel a little lonely at least on some level. And as somebody else said to me a few days ago on the subject, to know you are well aware of and mean the same thing when you say you love each other can be something very special.
I also would really value that somebody could love me for the same kinds of things that I love about myself, that they could treasure my commitment to understanding and integrating this philosophy into my life for furthering my well being and life in general – as opposed to being loved in spite of or without much consideration of this. Sort of like how where art and romance are seen as having similarities through involving sense of life I’m reminded of Dagny speaking to Richard Halley in the valley and how he speaks of wanting her to hear his music in particular and how he values that she likes his music because it isn’t valuable to him just that people like his music in general, it’s that he wants somebody who can understand it and like it for the same reasons he does. Now, on the up side and largely part of why I haven’t left before, I do know though that this person I care for does value a lot of the same things I do value about myself, including much of what ties into my philosophic positions.
I’m a little unsure of what to make of things here because he does want to even get to know the philosophy for what impact the philosophy has on me as that can help him then be better able to deal with me and not misinterpret things and he even from what he’s seen of it so far (not so much, no book length readings have been done or anything like that) thinks its a fine philosophy, but so far he seems to conclude that a philosophy like this (or maybe philosophies in general) is really just helpful to some people who need the extra guidance and that he’s totally fine without it and that it would just be something unnecessary and cumbersome for him, just slowing him down. ; I’m not sure if maybe after serious examination he’d change his mind or not about that point, but I’ve decided I should go about making my decision here based on the assumption of him not doing so and just never seeing Objectivism as anything that could actually be good for him, since anyway I’ve got to decide now if I could love him exactly as he already is. This is an oddly frustrating point to be in – somebody here thinks the philosophy is all fine and well, just that they’re one of some special ones who are good enough that they don’t need it and it would just be a hindrance to make themselves bother with it. (I know Rand has whole write ups on why everybody needs philosophy, but I know also that there’s really not going to be time soon even to show him this stuff to see what his reaction would be toward that. He’s REALLY busy right now.)
So I’d like to ask here now how people who do support and strongly see the value of Objectivism deal with - both in their thoughts/view and their actions - having intended permanent romantic partners who they have strong reason to believe will never also see the correctness and/or value of Objectivism (to you and/or them and/or human people in general.)
So I’d like to ask here now how people who do support and strongly see the value of Objectivism deal with - both in their thoughts/view and their actions - having intended permanent romantic partners who they have strong reason to believe will never also see the correctness and/or value of Objectivism (to you and/or them and/or human people in general.)
This is a tough one that I’ve personally struggled with for many years. Do you get what you think you can out of the other person and settle into the idea that “this is the best I can find”? Or, do you keep searching, knowing full well that it could potentially lead you to a life of solitude in terms of romance. How valuable is romance in your life, and is it worth the risk?
What I found with my past relationships is that I could only admire, or love, the other person “down to a certain point”. There were always fundamental differences, usually religion. I found that I was really running up against the wall of altruism. I just could not find an Objectivist, let alone an Objectivist that would also have a personality that complemented mine. Fortunately, I don’t have that problem anymore.
I think it’s perfectly OK (from a moral standpoint) to date non-Objectivists as long as you keep in mind that the probability of it becoming a long-term, deeply romantic and satisfying, relationship is nil (or pretty darn close). Kendall hit on a very good point. You have to value the other person and you have to feel valued or “visible”. At some point, you have to face the very real (and likely) possibility that you will discover where their flaws are, and you’ll have to make a choice about leaving (or the relationship will end) and start over again, or trying to get them interested in Oism. How do you reconcile that they’ll never (or may never) see “eye to eye”? Well, you look for the best in them and focus on that. Just realize that if you are being honest with yourself, the feeling of love and admiration for this person is likely only going to go “so far” unless something happens and they decide to choose O’ism as their philosophy. I say that not because I think you should be searching out “titles”, or because Objectivism is “magical”, but because of what is common among people who choose Objectivism as their philosophy. I think the philosophy brings out the best in a person, helps them define themselves, and gives them the tools required for genuine self-esteem. Just be mindful that you can’t “convert” anyone. You can show them everything, try to convince them to get interested, but in the end, accepting the philosophy is something that has to be _ initiated _ by the individual.
Personally, I found the process of dating non-O’ists unsatisfying and emotionally draining.
I don’t know whether or not it will be helpful, but Dr. Peikoff was asked about this issue, generally, in one of his podcasts, Episode 15 – May 19, 2008.
The question asked of him was: “Should an Objectivist pursue a serious romantic relationship with a Christian? A few weeks ago an Objectivist friend of mine informed me that his girlfriend expressed profound disappointment with his atheism, but nevertheless my friend said that they try to co-exists with their philosophical differences because of his strong feelings he has from her. This is a very serious relationship; they are talking about marriage. What would you advise him?”
It’s the second question in the podcast, and starts at about 4:30.
To bluecherry:
In love, the self is celebrated, not denied, abandoned, or sacrificed.
The purpose of romantic love is, among other things, to celebrate self-esteem, not to create it in those who lack it.
(These come from Nathaniel Branden).
I’ll add that there are 3 words in “I love you” — understand these words fully before you bring Objectivism into your relationship.