Marrying Non-Objectivists

Psychology and Self Improvement Relationships, Love, Sex, Romance
21

People seem to be under the mistaken impression that she doesn’t still love me.  She does.  She’s just confused and doesn’t know if she’s ready to be married.

Don’t waste your time telling that to us, because some will never get it :dough:

And just because you may perceive her as being the loser doesn’t mean that I can’t be crushed too.

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

I’m considerably more optimistic than I have been the past couple of days.  I even ate an actual meal a little while ago.

Good for you :lol:

…bit manic tonight, aren’t we, Inspector :wacko:

22

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

…bit manic tonight, aren’t we, Inspector :dough:

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.

23

Nowhere did I say that, unless you meant “people” other than me. It certainly isn’t my position.

And “fast” is a relative term. In this case “fast” is simply fast_er_ than your actual philosophic closeness deserves.

I also think it’s fallacious to assume that 2 people should be philosophically close in order to have a happy relationship. I know plenty of people who are far more different than my fiance and I who are perfectly happy…some of whom have been married in excess of 20 years.

I am not an Objectivist. I think Objectivism is an interesting philosophy and I agree with much of it, but I am not comfortable with all of it. One thing I’ve noticed is that younger Objectivists, like miedra, tend to be overly zealous and think that all non-Objectivists are evil, horrible people. Well, I certainly don’t see things that way. I believe that religious people can be, and quite often are, very good people, who just don’t want to part with their upbringing. My fiancee certainly falls under this category. While we may differ on a few philosophical principles, the positives of our relationship have far outweighed the negatives.

24

I also think it’s fallacious to assume that 2 people should be philosophically close in order to have a happy relationship.

I think that 2 people have to be philosophically close, but exactly what “close” is is up to the individuals. You seem capable of making that decision :wacko:

I never used the word “loser”

Then why assume I was referring to you :dough:

Manic was just in reference to posting five consecutive times in an hour…

25

I also think it’s fallacious to assume that 2 people should be philosophically close in order to have a happy relationship.

That depends on what you mean by “close.” So long as their beliefs don’t fundamentally differ, they won’t threaten each other. That’s not to say that two people who mutually reject reality aren’t in other kinds of trouble…

My advice applies to an Objectivist pursuing a relationship. It’s the right way to do it. The complexity of what makes Objectivism necessary to be accepted COMPLETELY and not piecemeal is quite frankly too much to get into here. You’re not paying me enough to do it.

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.

But now that you’ve introduced TWO variables into this equation: HER deviation from reality and YOUR deviation from reality, it’s just way too much now for me to be able to say anything at all.

On a differant subject, what part of Objectivism DON’T you accept?

26

Then why assume I was referring to you :dough:

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?

27

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.

28

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.

29

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.

30

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? :wacko:

:dough:

31

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.

32

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.”

33

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? :dough:

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.

34

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”.

35

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).

36

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

37

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

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.

38

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.

39

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

40

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